According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs have ostensibly beenemployed as delivery workers. However, they have been required tospend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tippedduties, including but not limited to sweeping and mopping thehallway, the kitchen, and the bathroom, organizing the inventory,sweeping and raking the sidewalk, cleaning the toilet and the sink,tying up cardboard boxes, stocking supplies and deliveries, washingthe dishes and salad containers, taking out the trash, making forkand knife sets, putting paper bags inside plastic bags fordelivery, cutting and bagging bread, refilling soap bottles,preparing soup and small popcorn bags, and dropping off or pickingup food to and from the other Blue Dog locations.

The Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants without appropriateminimum wage compensation for the hours that they have worked.Rather, Defendants have failed to maintain accurate recordkeepingof the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately forany hours worked at the straight rate of pay, the lawsuitsays.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendants inexcess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that theyworked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accuraterecordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffsappropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate ofpay or for any additional overtime premium.

Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spreadof hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours aday. Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiffswages on a timely basis. Defendants employed and accounted forPlaintiffs as delivery workers in their payroll, but in actualitytheir duties required a significant amount of time spent performingnon-tipped duties, the lawsuit says.[BN]

ABBVIE INC: Enters Into Confidential Term Sheet in TRT-Related Suit-------------------------------------------------------------------AbbVie Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2018, that the company has entered intoa confidential term sheet with representatives of the Plaintiffs'Steering Committee in the MDL proceeding for the settlement ofexisting claims in all courts.

Product liability cases are pending in which plaintiffs generallyallege that AbbVie and other manufacturers of testosteronereplacement therapies (TRTs) did not adequately warn about risks ofcertain injuries, primarily heart attacks, strokes and blood clots.Approximately 4,067 claims are consolidated for pre-trial purposesin the United States District Court for the Northern District ofIllinois under the MDL Rules as In re: Testosterone ReplacementTherapy Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2545. Approximately205 claims against AbbVie are pending in various state courts.

Plaintiffs generally seek compensatory and punitive damages. Sixcases have gone to trial. Four of those have resulted in completeverdicts for AbbVie: three by juries in the United States DistrictCourt for the Northern District of Illinois in January, May, andJune 2018, and one by a jury in the Cook County, Illinois CircuitCourt in August 2017.

Another case in the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Illinois resulted in a jury verdict for AbbVie on twoclaims and for the plaintiff on one claim and an award of $150million in punitive damages with no compensatory damages in July2017. In orders from December 2017 and February 2018, the courtvacated that verdict and ordered a new trial.

In the March 2018 retrial, the jury reached a verdict for AbbVie onstrict liability and fraud and for the plaintiff on negligence andawarded $200,000 in compensatory damages and $3 million in punitivedamages, which is the subject of post-trial proceedings. Anothercase in the United States District Court for the Northern Districtof Illinois resulted in a jury verdict for AbbVie on strictliability and for the plaintiff on remaining claims and an award of$140,000 in compensatory damages and $140 million in punitivedamages in August 2017.

In July 2018, the court vacated that verdict and ordered a newtrial. In September 2018, AbbVie entered into a confidential termsheet with representatives of the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee inthe MDL proceeding for the settlement of existing claims in allcourts.

AbbVie said, "That settlement is subject to the execution of adefinitive settlement agreement and other contingencies."

AbbVie Inc. discovers, develops, manufactures, and sellspharmaceutical products worldwide. The company offers HUMIRA, atherapy administered as an injection for autoimmune diseases;IMBRUVICA, an oral therapy for treating chronic lymphocyticleukemia; and VIEKIRA PAK, an interferon-free therapy, with orwithout ribavirin, to treat adults with genotype 1 chronichepatitis C. The company was incorporated in 2012 and is based inNorth Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff and members of the class also seek a permanentinjunction under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, prohibitingActelion from denying samples of Tracleer to prospectiveAbbreviated New Drug Applications filers. Unless enjoined, Actelionwill continue its unlawful conduct and Plaintiff and the proposedclass will continue to bear the financial brunt of Actelion'santitrust violations.

This case arises from Actelion's illegal scheme to maintain itsmonopoly over the prescription drug bosentan. Bosentan is a dualendothelin receptor antagonist that Actelion sells as a treatmentfor pulmonary artery hypertension under the brand name "Tracleer."PAH is a relatively rare, but chronic, and potentially fataldisorder in which elevated blood pressure in the arteries of thelungs causes the heart to work harder than normal. It affectsbetween 10,000 and 20,000 people in the U.S. -- most of them women.PAH is a progressive condition. Without treatment, only about 70%of patients survive a year after diagnosis. PAH is also anextremely expensive condition to treat. In 2016, America's HealthInsurance Plans, an industry organization of health insurers,estimated that average drug spending for PAH patients was between$103,464 and $196,560 per year.

While Tracleer is a highly profitable drug (billions in sales forActelion) and Actelion's regulatory and patent exclusivity over theuse of bosentan to treat PAH expired by November 20, 2008 andNovember 20, 2015, respectively, no generic manufacturer hasbrought a generic bosentan to market.

Specifically, Actelion blocked would-be generic bosentanmanufacturers from obtaining samples of Tracleer. To obtain FDAapproval of a generic drug application, a generic manufacturer mustrun comparison tests to establish that the brand and the genericare bioequivalent - that is, that the generic is absorbed in thebody at the same rate and to the same extent as the brand. Doing sorequires samples of the brand product. Without these samples,generic manufacturers cannot complete the regulatory process andcannot bring a competing generic to market, the lawsuit says.

Actelion's anticompetitive scheme has been 100% effective. To date,no generic Tracleer is available in the U.S. nearly three yearsafter the expiration of the Tracleer patent. Actelion's scheme hasforced Plaintiff and other purchasers to pay higher prices forbosentan for far longer than they otherwise would have. AbsentActelion’s years-long blockade, one or more generics would havebeen available at or around the expiration of Tracleer's patentprotection in November 2015.[BN]

ADVANCE AUTO: Still Defends Delaware Class Action-------------------------------------------------Advance Auto Parts, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, forthe quarterly period ended October 6, 2018, that the companycontinues to defend itself against a putative class action lawsuitfiled in the the United States District Court, District ofDelaware.

On February 6, 2018, a putative class action on behalf ofpurchasers of the company's securities who purchased or otherwiseacquired their securities between November 14, 2016 and August 15,2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), was commenced against thecompany and certain of its current and former officers in theUnited States District Court, District of Delaware.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to disclosematerial adverse facts about the company's financial well-being,business relationships, and prospects during the alleged ClassPeriod in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Advance Auto Parts said, "The case is still in its preliminarystages. We strongly dispute the allegations of the complaint andintend to defend the case vigorously."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Advance Auto Parts, Inc. provides automotive replacement parts,batteries, accessories, and maintenance items for domestic andimported cars, vans, sport utility vehicles, and light and heavyduty trucks. The company was founded in 1929 and is based inRoanoke, Virginia.

Accordng to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly failed toaddress Akorn's non-compliance with Food and Drug Administration(FDA) rules designed to ensure the safety and efficacy ofpharmaceutical products. The Individual Defendants' failure toensure these serious issues were addressed breached their fiduciaryduties and caused massive harm to Akorn. Moreover, despite beingrepeatedly advised of Akorn's pervasive non-compliance with FDArules designed to ensure the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticalproducts, the Individual Defendants caused Akorn to make knowinglyfalse statements to the contrary in Akorn's Proxy Statements filedwith the SEC.

The Board's misconduct came to light after Akorn entered into amerger agreement with Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA, a German healthcareprovider. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Fresenius wouldacquire all the stock of Akorn in an all-cash deal valued at $4.3billion. While doing due diligence in advance of the merger,Fresenius received three letters from purported whistleblowers.These letters alleged that (among other things) Akorn's researchand development activities were significantly "flawed and mostlycorrupted or incomplete." Prompted by the whistleblowers'allegations, Fresenius opened an investigation into their claims.The results were astounding -- showing a pattern and practice ofknowing violations of FDA regulations and provision of falsifiedclinical test results to the FDA. Among other things, theinvestigation revealed that: (a) Akorn's senior management andBoard were aware of the serious violations long before enteringinto the Merger Agreement and had failed to remediate them; (b)Akorn's Board executed the Merger Agreement even though it includedfalse representations concerning Akorn's compliance with FDA rules;and (c) even following the execution of the Merger Agreement,Akorn's Board and senior management continued to be informed ofserious regulatory violations -- including a risk of potentialcriminal liability -- but hid those violations rather than fixingthem.

As a result of these findings, Fresenius concluded that Akorn wasin material breach of the Merger Agreement and cancelled thetransaction in April 2018. Akorn sued Fresenius in the DelawareChancery Court to force Fresenius to close the deal. The companieswent to trial over the merger in July 2018. On October 1, 2018,Vice Chancellor Laster found in favor of Fresenius and canceled theMerger Agreement once and for all. In his Memorandum Opinion, theVice Chancellor stated that he ruled in favor of Fresenius "becauseAkorn's representations regarding its compliance with regulatoryrequirements were not true and correct, and the magnitude of theinaccuracies would reasonably be expected to result in a MaterialAdverse Effect." He explained that "the extensive and recurringquality and data integrity problems at Akorn convinced [him] thatAkorn did not have a well-functioning quality system and lacked ameaningful culture of compliance."

The facts revealed during trial show that when Akorn's Boardlearned about the serious data integrity and regulatory violationsat Akorn, rather than remediating them, they instead hid them whiletrying to find a merger partner so that they could foist theCompany's problems on the acquirer. This strategy would haveprovided a windfall for the Director Defendants but instead hasleft Akorn in shambles and damaged it by millions of dollars inlegal fees, costs, and expenses. The fallout from this debacle hasdevastated Akorn. Akorn's market capitalization as of October 3,2018 was $720 million, a mere fraction of its $34 dollar per shareor $4.3 billion value when the Merger Agreement was executed. Itwill cost Akorn an estimated $900 million to remediate its seriousregulatory issues, and it is still unknown what regulatory stepsthe FDA will take, but it could impose huge fines on the Companyand place severe limitations on the Company's approved products andpipeline of new products, the lawsuit says.[BN]

ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Seeks Preliminary Approval of Cal. Settlement-----------------------------------------------------------------Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company hasentered into a definitive settlement agreement, or SettlementAgreement, in the putative class action suit filed in the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of California, andsubmitted it to the Court for approval.

On December 30, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filedagainst the company in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of California, or the Court, alleging violations of theTelephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA. The complaint does notallege that Alarm.com itself violated the TCPA, but instead seeksto hold the company responsible for the marketing activities of oneof its service providers as well as calls made by one of thisservice provider's sub-dealer agents under principles of agency andvicarious liability.

On August 30, 2018, the company reached an agreement in principleto settle the case for total cash consideration of $28.0 million.On October 25, 2018, the company entered into a definitivesettlement agreement, or Settlement Agreement, and submitted it tothe Court for approval. In entering into the definitive settlementagreement, the company is making no admission of liability.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, among other things, (1) thecompany agreed to pay total cash consideration of $28.0 millioninto a settlement fund, (2) the company agreed to implement certainbusiness practice changes to increase awareness of TCPA compliance,(3) each party to the Settlement Agreement agreed to a mutualrelease of claims relating to any claim or potential claim relatingto the marketing activities described in the complaint, and (4)each party covenanted not to sue the other with regard to thereleased claims. In addition, the company has agreed to no longerallow the service provider identified in the litigation aspurportedly violating the TCPA to continue activating new accountsfor Alarm.com products and services after preliminary Courtapproval of the Settlement Agreement.

The company will be required to make an initial payment of $5.0million to the settlement administrator within ten business days ofpreliminary approval by the Court of the Settlement Agreement. Theremaining payment will take place ten business days after theeffective date of the Settlement Agreement, which is five businessdays following the later of the following events: (1) the date uponwhich the time expires for filing a notice of appeal of the Court'sFinal Approval Order and Judgment; or (2) if there is an appeal orappeals of the Final Approval Order and Judgment, and the appellatecourt enters an order either dismissing the appeal(s) or affirmingthe Final Approval Order and Judgment without materialmodification, the date upon which the time expires for seekingreview of that order. The release of claims includes all allegeddamages incurred related to the lawsuit. Any attorneys' feesawarded by the Court and all costs of notice and claimsadministration will be paid from the settlement fund.

The Settlement Agreement is subject to approval by the Court. Ifthe Court preliminarily approves the settlement, the SettlementAgreement provides for a period of time during which class memberswill be notified of the settlement and given an opportunity to filea claim form to receive a settlement payment, opt out of the class,object to the settlement or do nothing. The company expects thatthe Court will schedule a fairness hearing to occur after thenotice period, at which time the parties will request finalapproval of the settlement and at which any objectors to thesettlement will be heard. If the Court gives final approval to thesettlement, the release will be effective as to all class memberswho do not validly opt out of the class, regardless of whether theyfiled a claim form and received a payment.

Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software platformsolutions for smart residential and commercial properties in theUnited States and internationally. The company provides interactivesecurity solutions to control and monitor their security systems,as well as connected security devices, including door locks, motionsensors, thermostats, garage doors, and video cameras; and highdefinition video monitoring solutions, such as live streaming,smart clip capture, secure cloud storage, video alerts, continuousHD recording, and commercial video surveillance solutions.Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquarteredin Tysons, Virginia.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants enteredinto a no-hire and non-solicitation agreements, for the expresspurpose of depressing and reducing market-based wages and benefitincreases for Class Members that are typically associated with theactive recruitment of employees and workers in a competitiveindustry. While protecting and enhancing their profits, theDefendants, through their no-hire and non-solicitation agreements,robbed the Class Members millions of dollars-worth of wages forwhich Plaintiffs and the Class now seek relief.

Albany Shaker Donuts LLC is a New York limited liability company.The Company operates a chain of coffee and baked goods restaurants.[BN]

ALLIANCE MMA: Shapiro Class Action Dismissed--------------------------------------------The purported class action case styled Shapiro v. Alliance MMA,Inc., No. 1:17-cv-2583 (D.N.J.) has been dismissed followingapproval of the parties' settlement, according to Alliance MMA,Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 16, 2018, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2018.

As previously reported by the Class Action Reporter, Judge RobertB. Kugler on October 15 granted the Motion for Final Approval ofClass Action Settlement and Motion for Attorney Fees Reimbursementof Expenses, and Award to Lead Plaintiffs in this case.

In April and May 2017, respectively, two purported securities classaction complaints--Shapiro v. Alliance MMA, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-2583(D.N.J.), and Shulman v. Alliance MMA, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-3282(S.D.N.Y.)--were filed against the Company and certain of itsofficers in the United States District Court for the District ofNew Jersey and the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of New York, respectively.

The complaints alleged that the defendants violated certainprovisions of the federal securities laws, and purported to seekdamages in an amount to be alleged on behalf of a class ofshareholders who purchased the Company's common stock pursuant ortraceable to the Company's initial public offering.

In July 2017, the plaintiffs in the New York action voluntarilydismissed their claim and, on March 8, 2018, the parties reached asettlement to the New Jersey action in which the carrier for ourdirectors and officers liability insurance policy has agreed tocover Alliance's financial obligations, including legal fees, underthe settlement arrangement, subject to our payment of a deductibleof US$250,000, of which approximately US$103,000 is included withinaccounts payable. The complaint was dismissed in October 2018.

Alliance MMA, Inc. focuses on mixed martial arts (MMA) promotionalactivities. It operates through three segments: Promotions, TicketServices, and Athlete Management. The company was founded in 2015and is based in New York, New York.

The Court said, "On October 22, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a classaction complaint. At the same time, the plaintiffs filed what thecourt commonly refers to as a "protective" motion for classcertification. In this motion the plaintiff moved to certify theclass described in the complaint but also moved the court to stayfurther proceedings on that motion. In Damasco v. Clearwire Corp.,662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), the court suggested thatclass‐action plaintiffs "move to certify the class at the sametime that they file their complaint." "The pendency of that motionprotects a putative class from attempts to buy off the namedplaintiffs." However, because parties are generally unprepared toproceed with a motion for class certification at the beginning of acase, the Damasco court suggested that the parties “ask thedistrict court to delay its ruling to provide time for additionaldiscovery or investigation." The parties are relieved from theautomatic briefing schedule set forth in Civil Local Rule 7(b) and(c). Moreover, for administrative purposes, it is necessary thatthe Clerk terminate the plaintiff's motion for class certification.However, this motion will be regarded as pending to serve itsprotective purpose under Damasco."[CC]

ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS: Leavitt Securities Class Suit Ongoing--------------------------------------------------------------Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the companycontinues to defend itself from a federal securities class actionsuit filed by Caryl Hull Leavitt.

On September 26, 2018, Caryl Hull Leavitt individually and onbehalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class actioncomplaint for violation of federal securities laws against Alnylam,its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint purports to bring a federal securities class actionon behalf of a class of persons who acquired the company'ssecurities between February 15, 2018 and September 12, 2018 andseeks to recover damages caused by defendants' alleged violationsof the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies underSections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andRule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants madematerially false and misleading statements related to the efficacyand safety of the company's product, ONPATTRO (patisiran) lipidcomplex injection. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, thedesignation of the action as a class action, an award ofunspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses,including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as thecourt deems appropriate.

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals said, "We believe that the allegationscontained in the complaint are without merit and intend to defendthe case vigorously. We cannot predict at this point the length oftime that this action will be ongoing or the liability, if any,which may arise therefrom."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company,discovers, develops, and commercializes novel therapeutics based onRNA interference (RNAi). The company has strategic alliancesprimarily with Sanofi Genzyme; The Medicines Company; MonsantoCompany; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited; IonisPharmaceuticals, Inc; and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. AlnylamPharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is headquartered inCambridge, Massachusetts.

"all Amazon aplicants or employees in the United States who (1) applied online for work at Amazon.com using Salesforce.com; (2) were the subject of a consumer report that was procured by Amazon.com (or cause to be procured by

Amazon) from Accurate Background, Inc., (3) to whom Amazon.com presented the disclosure and authorization form filed as ECF No. 119-8; (4) within two years of the filing of the Hargrett Matter through July 17, 2018"; and

Pre-Adverse Action Notice Subclass:

"all Disclosure Form Class Members as to whom Amazon or its affiliates took adverse action based in whole or in part or any comsumer report from August 22, 2015 through July 17, 2018";

5. awarding class counsel Attorney's Fees and Expenses in the amount of $1,666,666 payable pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.[CC]

AMERATHON LLC: McBride Seeks Overtime Premium---------------------------------------------WILLIAM MCBRIDE, on behalf of himself and others similarlysituated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMERATHON, LLC, the Defendant, CaseNo.: 4:18-cv-02546-BYP (N.D. Ohio), alleges that Defendant did notpay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees any overtimepremium for hours worked in excess of 40 each workweek, pursuant tothe Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a laboratory serviceprovider for the long-term care industry. Among other things,Defendant employs Mobile Phlebotomists that travel to itsclients’ places of business and provide phlebotomy services. TheDefendant provides these services throughout Ohio, Delaware,Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri,North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and the Districtof Columbia. The Plaintiff is employed by Defendant as a MobilePhlebotomist. As such, he: draws blood, completes certainpaperwork, prepares tube labels, and transports collectedspecimens. Named Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, travel tofacilities, such as senior nursing facilities, rehabilitationcenters, assisted living facilities, and private homes, to obtainblood specimens.

The Defendant failed to pay its Mobile Phlebotomists an overtimepremium for hours worked over 40 per week. The Plaintiff estimatesthat Mobile Phlebotomists worked up to 50 hours or more per weekduring their employment. The Defendant failed to make, keep, andpreserve records of the hours worked by Plaintiff and othersimilarly-situated Mobile Phlebotomists, the lawsuit says.[BN]

AMERICAN FINANCE: Bid to Dismiss St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Pending---------------------------------------------------------------American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the motionto dismiss the putative class action suit initiated by Carolyn St.Clair-Hibbard is pending.

On February 8, 2018, Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard, a purportedstockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaintin the United States District Court for the Southern District ofNew York against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, Nicholas S.Schorsch and William M. Kahane.

On February 23, 2018, the complaint was amended to, among otherthings, assert some claims on the plaintiff's own behalf and otherclaims on behalf of herself and other similarly situatedshareholders of the Company as a class. On April 26, 2018,defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 25, 2018,plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.

The second amended complaint alleges that the proxy materials usedto solicit stockholder approval of the Merger at the Company's 2017annual meeting were materially incomplete and misleading. Thecomplaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Actagainst the Company, as well as control person liability againstthe Advisor, AR Global, and Messrs. Schorsch and Kahane under20(a). It also asserts state law claims for breach of fiduciaryduty against the Advisor, and claims for aiding and abetting suchbreaches, of fiduciary duty against the Advisor, AR Global andMessrs. Schorsch and Kahane. The complaint seeks unspecifieddamages, rescission of the Company's advisory agreement (orseverable portions thereof) which became effective when the Mergerbecame effective, and a declaratory judgment that certainprovisions of the Company's advisory agreement are void.

The Company believes the second amended complaint is without meritand intends to defend vigorously. On June 22, 2018, defendantsmoved to dismiss the second amended complaint. On August 1, 2018,plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss.Defendants filed reply papers on August 22, 2018, and oral argumentwas held on September 26, 2018.

That motion is now pending.

American Finance said, "Due to the early stage of the litigation,no estimate of a probable loss or any reasonably possible lossesare determinable at this time."

American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly traded real estateinvestment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring andmanaging a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented andtraditional retail and distribution related commercial real estateproperties in the U.S.

AMERICAN HONDA: Wires Being Chewed by Rodents, Caracci CIaims-------------------------------------------------------------JAY CARACCI, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated, the Plaintiff, vs. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, INC.,the Defendant, Case No. 2018CH14349 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., Nov.16, 2018), alleges that Honda omitted material facts when it failedto advise vehicle purchasers that (a) incidents of serious vehiclemalfunctions caused by rodents chewing through vehicle wiring hadincreased since the switch to eco-friendly component parts; (b)Honda sold "Honda 4019-2317 Rodent Tape" and recommended thatconsumers use such Rodent Tape to cover their Honda vehicle'swiring under the front hood; and (c) vehicle malfunctions caused byrodent incidents would never be covered under Honda's New VehicleLimited Warranty, pursuant to the Illinois Consumer Fraud andDeceptive Business Practices Act.

According to the complaint, wiring insulation or protective coatingis imperative to the integrity of a vehicle's electrical system.However, while the soy or bio-based materials used in vehiclemanufacturing today may be allegedly more environmentally friendly,when the vehicles are placed in the stream of commerce and thenpurchased by consumers, they are increasingly more vulnerable torodent attacks. When the wire coating is eaten, the wires areexposed and damaged and ultimately result in vehicle malfunctions,and in some instances, a disabling of the vehicle altogether.Honda's Rodent Tape is made with a blend of spicy flavorings thatHonda claims will deter rodents but disclosure of the need forRodent Tape is only made after the vehicle is sold, malfunctions,brought in for repairs, and Honda denies warranty coverage.

Honda has unfairly refused to warrant its vehicles when such damageoccurs and declines coverage for the required repairs and/orreplacement parts, even though its authorized repair centers chargeconsumers to apply Rodent Tape after the vehicle is brought in andthe consumer learns: (a) the vehicle wiring has been chewedthrough; and (b) the consumer must go out-of-pocket or make aninsurance claim for the wire repair. Honda fails to disclose at thetime of sale that its vehicle wiring should be covered in flavoredRodent Tape to deter chewing and protect vehicle wiring under thefront hood and that any repair required because of a rodent eatingthrough the soy or bio-based wiring is not covered under Honda'swarranty, the lawsuit says.

The American Honda Motor Company, Inc. is a North Americansubsidiary of the Honda Motor Company, Ltd. It was founded in1959.[BN]

AMERICAN VANGUARD: Scheduling Conference Set for June 2019----------------------------------------------------------American Vanguard Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that ascheduling conference is set for June 2019, in the consolidatedclass action suit involving banana plantation workers.

Three cases that were filed with the United States District Courtfor the District of Delaware as early as 2012 and have since beenconsolidated (USDC DE No. 1:12-CV-00697-RGS) involving claims forphysical injury arising from alleged exposure to DBCP over thecourse of the late 1960's through the mid-1980's on behalf of whatwere originally about 2,700 banana plantation workers from Ecuador,Panama, Costa Rica and Guatemala.

Following various motions to dismiss and appeals, 287 plaintiffsremain in the action. On or about June 18, 2017, the Third CircuitCourt submitted a certified question of law to the Delaware SupremeCourt on the question of when the tolling period for the applicablestatute of limitations in this matter had ended. The DelawareSupreme Court heard oral argument on January 17, 2018 and on March15, 2018 ruled on the matter, finding that federal court dismissalin 1995 on the grounds of forum non conveniens did not end classaction tolling.

The matter has, in effect, been remanded to the trial court which,in early August 2018, issued a discovery scheduling order covering,among other things, document production, medical examination ofclaimants and depositions. Another scheduling conference is set forJune 2019.

American Vanguard said, "The Company believes that a loss isneither probable nor reasonably estimable in these matters and hasnot recorded a loss contingency."

American Vanguard Corporation, through its subsidiaries, develops,manufactures, and markets specialty chemicals for agricultural,commercial, and consumer uses in the United States andinternationally. The company manufactures and formulates chemicals,including insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, molluscicides,growth regulators, and soil fumigants in liquid, powder, andgranular forms for crops, turf and ornamental plants, and human andanimal health protection. American Vanguard Corporation was foundedin 1969 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, California.

AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: National Prescription Opiate Suit Stayed----------------------------------------------------------------Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that allactivity in the case In Re: National Prescription OpiateLitigation, MDL No. 2804, remain stayed by order of the MDL court.

On August 17, 2017, plaintiff Linda Hughes, as the mother of NathanHughes, decedent, filed her complaint in Missouri state courtnaming Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York LLC, Impax, five otherpharmaceutical company defendants, and three healthcare providerdefendants.

Plaintiff alleges that use of defendants' opioid medications causedthe death of her son, Nathan Hughes. In her original complaint,plaintiff requested damages against the defendants andcertification of a class action. Plaintiff abandoned her requestfor a class action in her December 22, 2017, amended complaint. Inher amended complaint, plaintiff alleges causes of action againstAmneal and Impax for strict product liability, negligent productliability, violation of Missouri Merchandising Practices Act andfraudulent misrepresentation.

The case was removed to federal court on September 18, 2017. It wastransferred to the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Ohio on February 2, 2018, and is part of themultidistrict litigation pending as In Re: National PrescriptionOpiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804 (the "MDL"). Plaintiff has filed amotion to remand the case to Missouri state court. That motionremains pending before the MDL court. All activity in the case isstayed by order of the MDL court.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company,develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes genericpharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeuticareas. It operates through Generic and Specialty Pharma divisions.The company has operations in North America, Asia, and Europe.Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and isheadquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in a scheme todeceive the market and a course of conduct that artificiallyinflated the Company's stock price, and operated as a fraud ordeceit on acquirers of the Company's common stock. When the truthabout the Company' misconduct and its lack of operational andfinancial controls was revealed, the value of the Company’scommon stock declined precipitously as the prior artificialinflation no longer propped up its stock price. The decline in theCompany' common stock price was a direct result of the nature andextent of Defendants’ fraud finally being revealed to investorsand the market. The timing and magnitude of the common stock pricedecline negates any inference that the loss suffered by Plaintiffand other members of the Class was caused by changed marketconditions, macroeconomic or industry factors or Company-specificfacts unrelated to the Defendants' fraudulent conduct. The economicloss, i.e., damages, suffered by Plaintiff and other Class memberswas a direct result of Defendants' fraudulent scheme toartificially inflate the Company's stock price and the subsequentsignificant decline in the value of the Company's share, price whenDefendants' prior misrepresentations and other fraudulent conductwas revealed.

Defendants' materially false and misleading statements or omissionsalleged herein directly or proximately caused the damages sufferedby the Plaintiff and other Class members. Those statements werematerially false and misleading through their failure to disclose atrue and accurate picture of the Company’ business, operationsand financial condition, as alleged herein. Throughout the ClassPeriod, Defendants publicly issued materiallyfalse and misleading statements and omitted material factsnecessary to make Defendants' statements not false or misleading,causing the Company' common stock to be artificially inflated. ThePlaintiff and other Class members purchased the Company' commonstock at those artificially inflated prices, causing them to sufferthe damages complained, the lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff filed the case under the Fair Debt CollectionPractices Act.

ARS National Services, Inc. offers accounts receivable managementservices. It caters to financial services organizations, banks, andcredit card companies. The company is based in Escondido,California.[BN]

ASARCO LLC engages in mining, smelting, and refining copper andother metals. It offers copper rods, copper cakes, and coppercathodes. The company also provides bismuth selenide, which is usedto produce lead-free brass; and tellurium, which is used in therubber and chemical industries. ASARCO LLC was formerly known asASARCO Incorporated. The company was founded in 1899 and is basedin Tucson, Arizona with copper mines, copper smelters, SX/EWplants, and administrative offices in Arizona. It has a copperrefinery in Texas. As of December 9, 2009, ASARCO LLC operates as asubsidiary of Americas Mining Corporation. [BN]

"all individuals employed by AWG at any point from October 7, 2014 to the present, who held the position of supervisor in AWG's Pearl River facility";

2. directing Defendant to produce to Plaintiff, in electronic form, the full names, last known address, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of all putative collective members within 15 days of the Court's granting of conditional certification;

3. authorizing Plaintiff to send notice along with a consent to

opt-in form to the members of the putative collective via regular mail, and email;

4. authorizing Plaintiff to send notice to the members of the putative collective via text message as follows:

"If you worked for AWG as a supervisor at any time since October 7, 2014, you may be entitled to join a lawsuit claiming unpaid overtime pay. For additional information about the case, including how to join, please call the employees’ attorney at 985-590-5026 or 985-898-6368";

5. directing Defendant post notice in the form in Defendant's Pearl River Facility in a location easily visible to current

employees;

6. setting an opt-in deadline 60 days after the date in which notice is mailed to members of the collective, and that any opt-ins who seek to join the action after that deadline must

establish good cause for their delay; and

7. directing parties to file a joint motion to approve a third party administrator with the Court within 14 days of the order conditionally certifying the collective action.[CC]

AVANOS MEDICAL: Continues to Defend Jackson Class Suit------------------------------------------------------Avanos Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the companycontinues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Jacksonv. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, Steven E. Voskuil, etal.

Avanos Medical said, "We were served with a complaint in a matterstyled Jackson v. Halyard Health, Inc., Robert E. Abernathy, StevenE. Voskuil, et al., No. 1:16-cv-05093-LTS (S.D.N.Y.), filed on June28, 2016. In that case, the plaintiff brings a putative classaction against the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, itsChief Financial Officer and other defendants, asserting claims forviolations of the Securities Exchange Act, Sections 10(b) and20(a)."

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made misrepresentationsand failed to disclose certain information about the safety andeffectiveness of the company's MicroCool gowns and therebyartificially inflated the Company's stock prices during therespective class periods. The alleged class period for purchasersof Kimberly-Clark securities who subsequently received Avanossecurities is February 25, 2013 to October 21, 2014, and thealleged class period for purchasers of Avanos securities is October21, 2014 to April 29, 2016.

On February 16, 2017, the company moved to dismiss the case. OnMarch 30, 2018, the court granted the company's motion to dismissand entered judgment in its favor. On April 27, 2018, the plaintifffiled a Motion for Relief from the Judgment and for Leave to Amend.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants asa chart reviewer. During the period that Plaintiff Oraegbu workedin the Department of Utilization Management, he did not receive anaccurate wage statement with each payment of wages containing anaccurate accounting of the hours that he had worked and the numberof overtime hours worked. The Defendants failed to providePlaintiff Oraegbu with a wage notice at the date of his hiring orby February 1 of each year, the lawsuit says.[BN]

According to the complaint, the case concerns BofA's unlawfulbusiness practices relating to the imposition of multipleNon-Sufficient Funds Fees ("NSF Fee") and Overdraft Fees ("OD Fee")on a single consumer transaction. Two documents permit BofA tocharge a $35 NSF Fee when it determines a customer’s accountcontains insufficient funds to pay a transaction and it rejects thecharge. See BofA's Online Banking and Transfers Outside Bank ofAmerica Service Agreement and Electronic Disclosure. The AccountAgreements also permit BofA to charge a $35 OD Fee when itdetermines a customer lacks sufficient funds to pay a transactionbut it advances the funds and pays the transaction anyway.

Through the imposition of OD Fees and NSF Fees, the Bank makes overa billion dollars annually. BofA Account Fees falldisproportionately on racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly,and the young, many of whom regularly carry low bank accountbalances. Ms. Valperga does not dispute the Bank's right to either(a) reject a transaction and charge a single NSF Fee or (b) pay atransaction and charge a single OD Fee. But BofA unlawfullymaximizes its already profitable BofA Account Fees with deceptivepractices that also violate its contracts. Specifically, BofAunlawfully (a) assesses multiple NSF Fees on a single transactionand (b) assesses both OD Fees and NSF Fees on a single transaction.The Bank breaches its contract when it charges more than one $35NSF Fee on a single transaction, since the contract explicitlystates -- and reasonable consumers understand -- that onetransaction can only incur a single NSF Fee, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants madematerially false and misleading statements, as well as failed todisclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed todisclose to investors: (1) that the Company lacked adequateinternal controls to assess credit risk; (2) that, as a result,certain of the Company's loans posed an increased risk of loss;(3) that certain substandard loans were reasonably likely to leadto charge-offs; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,operations, and prospects were materially misleading and lacked areasonable basis.

On October 18, 2018, the Company reported that it had "incurredcombined charge-offs of $45.5 million on two Real EstateSpecialties Group credits" that had previously been classified assubstandard. On this news, the Company's share price fell $9.33 pershare, more than 26%, to close at $25.52 per share on October 19,2018, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Bank OZK provides a range of retail and commercial banking servicesto businesses, individuals, and non-profit and governmentalentities. The company accepts non-interest bearing checking,interest bearing transaction, business sweep, savings, moneymarket, individual retirement, and other accounts, as well as timedeposits. As of December 31, 2017, it operated through 253 officesin Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Alabama,South Carolina, California, New York, and Mississippi. The companywas formerly known as Bank of the Ozarks and changed its name toBank OZK in July 2018. Bank OZK was founded in 1981 and isheadquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas. [BN]

BAUSCH HEALTH: Timber Hill Suit Consolidated with Existing Case---------------------------------------------------------------Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the classaction entitled, Timber Hill LLC, v. Valeant PharmaceuticalsInternational, Inc., et al., has been consolidated in the caseentitled, In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.Securities Litigation.

From October 22, 2015 to October 30, 2015, four putative securitiesclass actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for theDistrict of New Jersey against the Company and certain current orformer officers and directors. Those four actions, captioned Potterv. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No.15-cv-7658), Chen v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. etal. (Case No. 15-cv-7679), Yang v. Valeant PharmaceuticalsInternational, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7746), and Fein v.Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No.15-cv-7809), all asserted securities fraud claims under Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the"Exchange Act") on behalf of putative classes of persons whopurchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during varioustime periods between February 28, 2014 and October 21, 2015.

The allegations relate to, among other things, allegedly false andmisleading statements and/or failures to disclose information aboutthe Company's business and prospects, including relating to drugpricing, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies, and theCompany's relationship with Philidor.

On May 31, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the fouractions under the caption In re Valeant PharmaceuticalsInternational, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-07658,and appointing a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. OnJune 24, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaintnaming additional defendants and asserting additional claims basedon allegations of false and misleading statements and/or omissionssimilar to those in the initial complaints.

Specifically, the consolidated complaint asserts claims underSections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company,and certain current or former officers and directors, as well asclaims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of1933 (the "Securities Act") against the Company, certain current orformer officers and directors, and certain other parties.

The lead plaintiff seeks to bring these claims on behalf of aputative class of persons who purchased the Company's equitysecurities and senior notes in the United States between January 4,2013 and March 15, 2016, including all those who purchased theCompany's securities in the United States in the Company's debt andstock offerings between July 2013 to March 2015. On September 13,2016, the Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss theconsolidated complaint. Briefing on the Company's motion wascompleted on January 13, 2017.

On April 28, 2017, the Court dismissed certain claims arising outof the Company's private placement offerings and otherwise deniedthe motions to dismiss. Defendants' answers to the consolidatedcomplaint were filed on August 18, 2017.

On June 6, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Companyand certain current or former officers and directors. This action,captioned Timber Hill LLC, v. Valeant PharmaceuticalsInternational, Inc., et al., (Case No. 2:18-cv-10246), assertssecurities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theExchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchasedcall options or sold put options on the Company’s common stockduring the period January 4, 2013 through August 11, 2016.

On June 11, 2018, this action was consolidated with In re ValeantPharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, (CaseNo. 3:15-cv-07658). On September 20, 2018, lead plaintiff filed anamended complaint, adding claims against ValueAct CapitalManagement L.P. and affiliated entities.

"all BayCare employees and job applicants who applied for or worked in a position at BayCare in the United States and who were the subject of a consumer report that was procured by BayCare within two years of the filing of this complaint through the date of final judgment as to whom BayCare used the "Consumer Disclosure and Authorization form," "Authorization of

Background Investigation," provided by HireRight, Inc., to satisfy its stand-alone disclosure requirements under the The Fair Credit Reporting Act.

In connection with this final certification, the Court made thesefinal findings:

-- Class Counsel

Luis A. Cabassa and Brandon J. Hill of Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A. will continue to serve as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.

-- Class Representative

Plaintiff Elayne Figueroa will continue to serve as Class Representative for the Settlement Class.

-- Settlement Consideration

Defendant and Plaintiff are hereby ordered to comply with the terms and conditions contained in the Settlement Agreement.

-- Applicability

The provisions of this Final Order are applicable to and binding upon and inure to the benefit of each party to the Action (including each Settlement Class Member and

each of Defendants' successors and assigns). All persons who

are included within the definition of the Settlement Class and who did not properly file requests for exclusion are therefore bound by this Final Order and by the Settlement Agreement.

-- Release

As of the Effective Date, the Settlement Class members, including Plaintiff (collectively, the "Releasing Parties"),

but excluding those individuals who asked to be excluded from the Settlement, release Defendant and its affiliates and subsidiaries ("Released Parties"), from the "Released Claims." The Releasing Parties stipulate and agree that upon

the Court's final approval of this Settlement Agreement, the

claims in the case shall be dismissed with prejudice. The Releasing Parties, on behalf of themselves and their respective assigns, agree not to sue or otherwise make a claim against any of the Released Parties that is in any way

related to the Released Claims.

-- Dismissal

The Court dismisses this Action and all claims with prejudice, without costs to any party, except as expressly provided for in the Settlement Agreement.

-- Settlement Fund

Defendant will create a non-reversionary fund for Class Members consisting of $85,000.00. The Class Members will not

be required to take any action to receive a portion of the funds, making it a "claims paid" settlement. Members of the class will receive a pro rata gross amount of the settlement

fund. The named Plaintiff, Elayne Figueroa, is awarded an incentive award of $5,000.00, and will be deducted from the Settlement Fund before the funds are distributed.

-- Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees, Costs.

Plaintiff's counsel is awarded fee and costs consisting of $28,333.33 in accordance with the terms and conditions in the Settlement Agreement.

-- Cy pres.

BayCare Emergency Assistance Program, Inc., a non-profit charity is appointed by the Court as the cy pres recipient.

-- Final Order

The Court orders that this Final Approval Order shall constitute a final judgment pursuant to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that is binding on the parties and the Settlement Class.[CC]

BIRD RIDES: Labowitz Sues over Use of Electric Scooters-------------------------------------------------------MIA LABOWITZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, Plaintiff v. BIRD RIDES, INC.; NEUTRON HOLDINGS, INC.;CITY OF SANTA MONICA; CITY OF LOS ANGELES; CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS;and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-09329-MWF-SK (C.D.Cal., Oct. 31, 2018) is an action against the Defendants'deliberate and systematic exploitation of the curb ramps,sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian crossings and other walkwayswithin the Cities of Santa Monica, Los Angeles and Beverly Hills,for their own corporate profit to the harm of some of the mostvulnerable residents of the Cities, the disabled.

According to the complaint, the Electric Scooters sold andmanufactured by the Defendants cause barriers in paths of travelwhen they are operated. The Electric Scooters are wheeled and motorpowered, propelling them at speeds around 15 miles per hour.Operators of the Electric Scooters are not required by theDefendants to have any training. The combination of high relativespeeds, compared to pedestrians, and lack of restrictions regardingthe operator, creates hazardous conditions which causes thePlaintiff, and likely others in the Proposed Class difficulty,humiliation and frustration. Electric Scooters of the Defendantsalso deter the Plaintiffs from using the Pedestrian Rights of Way.

Bird Rides, Inc. operates as an electric vehicle sharing company.The company provides a fleet of electric, shared scooters that canbe accessed through smartphones. The company was incorporated in2017 and is based in Santa Monica, California. [BN]

BLUE APRON: Bid to Nix IPO-Related Class Suit in E.D.N.Y. Pending-----------------------------------------------------------------Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2018, that it remains subject to aconsolidated putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of New York alleging federalsecurities law violations in connection with the Company's June2017 initial public offering.

The amended complaint alleges that the Company and certain currentand former officers and directors made material misstatements oromissions in the Company's registration statement and prospectusthat caused the stock price to drop.

Pursuant to a stipulated schedule entered by the parties,defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May21, 2018. Plaintiffs filed a response on July 12, 2018 anddefendants filed a reply on August 13, 2018. The motion to dismissremains pending before the court.

Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. operates an e-commerce marketplace thatdelivers original recipes and fresh ingredients for making homecooking accessible. It provides original recipes with thepre-portioned ingredients to complement tastes and lifestyles ofcollege graduates, young couples, families, singles, and emptynesters. Blue Apron Holdings, Inc. was incorporated in 2016 and isheadquartered in New York, New York.

Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC owns and operates a chain ofauto care and tire stores throughout the United States. RetailOperations, LLC was formerly known as BFS Retail & CommercialOperations, LLC and changed its name to Bridgestone RetailOperations, LLC in 2009. The company was founded in 1900 and isbased in Bloomingdale, Illinois. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLCoperates as a subsidiary of Bridgestone Americas, Inc. [BN]

BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Dismissed from Roycroft Class Suit----------------------------------------------------Brighthouse Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the plaintiff inEdward Roycroft v. Brighthouse Financial, Inc., et al. (U.S.District Court, Southern District of New York, filed June 18,2018), has dismissed Brighthouse Financial, Inc. from the actionwithout prejudice.

Edward Roycroft filed a purported class action against BrighthouseFinancial, Inc., MetLife, Inc., and Metropolitan Life InsuranceCompany. The complaint alleges plaintiff is a beneficiary of aMartindale-Hubbell group annuity contract and did not receivepayments plaintiff claims he was entitled to upon his retirement in1999.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all beneficiaries who weredue annuity benefits pursuant to group annuity contracts and whoseannuity benefits were released from reserves. Plaintiff's causes ofaction are for conversion, unjust enrichment, an accounting and fora constructive trust. Plaintiff seeks damages, attorneys' fees,declaratory and injunctive relief and other equitable remedies.

In September 2018, plaintiff dismissed Brighthouse Financial, Inc.from the action without prejudice.

Brighthouse Financial, Inc. provides a range of annuity and lifeinsurance products in the United States. The company operatesthrough three segments: Annuities, Life, and Run-off. The companywas founded in 2016 and is headquartered in Charlotte, NorthCarolina.

CAFEPRESS INC: Faces Beck Suit over Snapfish Merger---------------------------------------------------HENRI BECK, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, Plaintiff v. CAFEPRESS INC.; FRED E. DURHAM, III; ANTHONYC. ALLEN; MARY ANN ARICO; KENNETH T. MCBRIDE; and ALAN B. HOWE,Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01694-UNA (D. Del., Oct. 29, 2018) isan action against the Defendants for violations of the Securitiesand Exchange Act of 1934, and for breaches of fiduciary duty as aresult of the Defendants' efforts to sell CafePress to Snapfish,LLC and Snapfish Merger Sub, Inc., and to enjoin the scheduledNovember 8, 2018 expiration of the tender offer to acquire all ofCafePress' common stock for $1.48 per share in cash.

According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants filed the materiallydeficient 14D-9 on October 12, 2018 with the SEC in an effort tosolicit stockholders to tender their CafePress shares in favor ofthe Proposed Transaction. The 14D-9 is materially deficient anddeprives CafePress stockholders of the information they need tomake an intelligent, informed and rational decision of whether totender their shares in favor of the Proposed Transaction. Asdetailed below, the 14D-9 omits and/or misrepresents materialinformation concerning, among other things: (a) the sales processleading up to the Proposed Transaction; and (b) the data and inputsunderlying the financial valuation analyses by Needham & Co., LLC("Needham") that purport to support the fairness opinions providedby Needham as the Company's financial advisor.

CafePress Inc. operates as retailer of personalized products in theUnited States and internationally. The company was formerly knownas CafePress.com, Inc. and changed its name to CafePress Inc. inJune 2011. CafePress Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquarteredin Louisville, Kentucky. As of November 8, 2018, CafePress Inc.operates as a subsidiary of Snapfish, LLC. [BN]

CAMELBAK PRODUCTS: Removed Morales Case to C.D. California----------------------------------------------------------CamelBak Products, LLC and Vista Outdoor, Inc. removed the casecaptioned REGINO MORALES, on behalf of himself and all otherssimilarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CAMELBAK PRODUCTS, LLC;VISTA OUTDOORS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.BC722123 (Los Angeles Superior Court), to the to the United StatesDistrict Court for the Central District of California on Nov. 7,2018. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned CaseNo. 2:18-cv-09457 to the proceeding.

On March 26, 2018, a group of 27 individual plaintiffs filed alawsuit in the District Court of Logan County, State of Oklahomaagainst 23 named defendants, including the company, and 25 unnameddefendants. Plaintiffs are all property owners and residents ofLogan County, Oklahoma, and allege the defendants, all oil and gascompanies which have engaged in injection well operations, inducedearthquakes which have caused damage to real and personal property,and caused emotional damages. Plaintiffs claim absolute liabilityfor ultra-hazardous activities, negligence, gross negligence,public and private nuisance, and trespass, and ask for compensatoryand punitive damages, and attorney fees and costs.

Jointly with other defendants, the company filed a motion to staythe proceedings pending resolution of Lisa West et al. v. ABC OilCompany, Inc.

Chaparral Energy said, "Despite dismissal of the class allegationsin the West case, the stay has not been lifted. When the stay islifted, we will dispute the plaintiffs' claims, dispute theremedies requested are available under Oklahoma law, and vigorouslydefend the case."

Chaparral Energy, Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration,development, production, and operation of onshore oil and naturalgas properties primarily in Oklahoma, the United States. Thecompany sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquidsprimarily to refineries and gas processing plant. The company wasfounded in 1988 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Butler Class Action Remains Stayed----------------------------------------------------Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the stay in thecase, James Butler et al. v. Berexco, L.L.C., Chaparral Energy,L.L.C, et al., has not been lifted.

On October 13, 2017, a group of 52 individual plaintiffs filed alawsuit in the District Court of Payne County, State of Oklahomaagainst 26 named defendants, including the company, and 25 unnameddefendants. Plaintiffs are all property owners and residents ofPayne County, Oklahoma, and allege salt water disposal activitiesby the defendants, owners or operators of salt water disposalwells, induced earthquakes which have caused damage to real andpersonal property, and emotional damages. Plaintiffs claimabsolute liability for ultra-hazardous activities, negligence,gross negligence, public and private nuisance, trespass, and askfor compensatory and punitive damages.

On December 18, 2017, the company moved the court to dismiss theclaims against it. Prior to plaintiffs responding to the company'smotion, a hearing on a motion to stay the Butler case was held onJanuary 4, 2018. The judge granted the motion to stay proceedings,ruling the Butler case was stayed pending final judgment or denialof class certification in the Lisa West et al. v. ABC Oil Company,Inc. case, supra.

Despite the dismissal of the class allegations in the West case,the stay has not been lifted. The company's motion to dismiss willnot be considered until the stay is lifted, at which time, ifnecessary, the company will dispute plaintiffs' claims, disputethat the remedies requested are available under Oklahoma law, andvigorously defend the case.

Chaparral Energy, Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration,development, production, and operation of onshore oil and naturalgas properties primarily in Oklahoma, the United States. Thecompany sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquidsprimarily to refineries and gas processing plant. The company wasfounded in 1988 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Challenges Dismissal of West & Hopson Suit------------------------------------------------------------Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the plaintiffs inthe case, Lisa West and Stormy Hopson, individually and as classrepresentatives on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., have filed a motion for a permissiveappeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the TenthCircuit, challenging the order dismissing the class allegations.

On February 18, 2016, an alleged class action was filed against thecompany, as well as several other operators in the District Courtof Pottawatomie County, State of Oklahoma, alleging claims onbehalf of named plaintiffs and all similarly situated personshaving an insurable real property interest in eight counties incentral Oklahoma (the "Class Area").

The plaintiffs allege the oil and gas operations conducted by thecompany and the other defendants have induced earthquakes in theClass Area. The plaintiffs did not seek damages for propertydamage, instead asked the court to require the defendants toreimburse plaintiffs and class members for earthquake insurancepremiums from 2011 through the time at which the court determinesthere is no longer a risk of induced earthquakes, as well asattorney fees and costs and other relief.

The company responded to the petition, denied the allegations andraised a number of affirmative defenses. On March 18, 2016, thecase was removed to the United States District Court for theWestern District of Oklahoma under the Class Action Fairness Act.

On May 20, 2016, the company filed a Notice of Suggestion ofBankruptcy, informing the court that the company had filedvoluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the UnitedStates Bankruptcy Code. On October 14, 2016, the plaintiffs filedan Amended Complaint adding additional defendants and increasingthe Class Area to 25 central Oklahoma counties.

Other defendants filed motions to dismiss the action, which weregranted on May 12, 2017. On July 18, 2017, plaintiffs filed aSecond Amended Complaint adding additional named plaintiffs asputative class representatives and adding three additional countiesto the putative class area.

The company moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint onSeptember 15, 2017. On August 13, 2018, the court granted thecompany's motion to dismiss, and on August 16, 2018 issued an orderstriking the class allegations from the Second Amended Complaint.On August 30, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for a permissiveappeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the TenthCircuit, challenging the order dismissing the class allegations.

Plaintiffs' attorneys filed a proof of claim on behalf of theputative class claiming in excess of $75,000 in the company'sChapter 11 Cases. The company filed an objection to class treatmentof the proof of claim filed by the West plaintiffs in ourbankruptcy proceeding.

The Bankruptcy Court heard the company's objection, and on February9, 2018 granted the company's objection to class treatment of theproof of claim.

Chaparral Energy said, "To the extent the appeal to the TenthCircuit disputes the dismissal of claims against us, we willdispute the plaintiffs' claims, dispute that the case meets therequirements for a class action, dispute the remedies requested areavailable under Oklahoma law, and vigorously defend the case."

Chaparral Energy, Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration,development, production, and operation of onshore oil and naturalgas properties primarily in Oklahoma, the United States. Thecompany sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquidsprimarily to refineries and gas processing plant. The company wasfounded in 1988 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Time to Appeal 10th Cir.'s Order Expires----------------------------------------------------------Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the deadline toappeal the order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuitin the class action suit entitled, Martha Donelson and John Friend,on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all similarly situatedpersons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C., has passed without an appealbeing filed.

On August 11, 2014, an alleged class action was filed against thecompany, as well as several other operators in Osage County,Oklahoma in the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Oklahoma, alleging claims on behalf of the namedplaintiffs and all similarly situated Osage County land owners andsurface lessees.

The plaintiffs challenged leases and drilling permits approved bythe Bureau of Indian Affairs without the environmental studiesallegedly required under the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA). The plaintiffs assert claims seeking recovery for trespass,nuisance, negligence and unjust enrichment. Relief sought includesdeclaring oil and natural gas leases and drilling permits obtainedin Osage County without a prior NEPA study void ab initio, removingthe company from all properties owned by the class members,disgorgement of profits, and compensatory and punitive damages.

On March 31, 2016, the Court dismissed the case against alldefendants as an improper challenge under NEPA and theAdministrative Procedures Act. On April 29, 2016, the plaintiffsfiled motions to alter or amend the court's opinion and vacate thejudgment, and to file an amended complaint to cure the deficiencieswhich the court found in the dismissed complaint.

On May 20, 2016, the Company filed a Notice of Suggestion ofBankruptcy, and as a result has not responded to the plaintiffs'motions. After plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was denied,plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Tenth Circuit Court ofAppeals on December 6, 2016. Oral argument regarding the appeal washeld on November 14, 2017, and on April 5, 2018, the Tenth Circuitaffirmed the dismissal. Plaintiffs petitioned for rehearing on May21, 2018.

Chaparral Energy said, "The deadline to appeal the order of theTenth Circuit passed without an appeal being filed."

Chaparral Energy, Inc. engages in the acquisition, exploration,development, production, and operation of onshore oil and naturalgas properties primarily in Oklahoma, the United States. Thecompany sells crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquidsprimarily to refineries and gas processing plant. The company wasfounded in 1988 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, files this class action complaint against Checkr, Inc.,brought on behalf of thousands of consumers affected by Checkr'spractices for selling background reports for employment purposes,and in using such reports to adjudicate consumers' eligibility foremployment, retention, or promotion.

In May 2018, Checkr sold a consumer report about Mr. Sanders inconnection with his application for employment with MakeSpace Labs,Inc. After the application and interview process, MakeSpace gavehim a conditional offer of employment contingent on passing abackground check. MakeSpace then ordered a consumer report aboutMr. Sanders from Checkr. Devastatingly for Mr. Sanders, Checkr'sconsumer report incorrectly stated he had multiple pending criminalcharges for rape and sexual assault. Mr. Sanders does not have anypending criminal charges. He has no criminal record whatsoever.Nonetheless, Checkr adjudicated Mr. Sanders as ineligible foremployment at MakeSpace, and MakeSpace adopted Checkr'sadjudication without any further review or process, and summarilydenied Mr. Sanders employment.

Checkr routinely, and as a matter of policy and practice,knowingly, intentionally, recklessly, and willfully includescriminal record information on consumer reports which does notinclude the most updated disposition of such records, which aretherefore inaccurate, the lawsuit says.[BN]

According to the complaint, the case is a class action on behalf ofpersons and entities that acquired Chegg securities between July30, 2018 and September 25, 2018, both dates inclusive. TheDefendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, aswell as failed to disclose material adverse facts about theCompany's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (i) that Chegg did notmaintain sufficient data security measures; (ii) that the Companymaintained insufficient internal controls and procedures to databreaches of its systems; (iii) consequently, the Company wouldbecome subject to increased expenses and litigation risks; and (iv)as a result, the Company's public statements were materially falseand misleading at all relevant times.

On September 25, 2018, the Company reported that an unauthorizedparty had gained access on or around April 29, 2018 toapproximately 40 million users' data, including username, emailaddress, shipping address, and hashed Chegg password. On this news,the Company's share price fell $3.91, or approximately 12%, toclose at $28.42 per share on September 26, 2018, on unusually heavytrading volume. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts andomissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of theCompany's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members havesuffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.

Chegg is a direct-to-student learning platform that provideseducational materials and services to high school and collegestudents. Chegg's common stock trades on the New York StockExchange under the symbol "CHGG."[BN]

According to the complaint, CTA is one of the nation's largest masstransit operators. CTA employs approximately 9,000 bus Operators,with 6,000 full-time Operators and 3,000 part-time Operators at anygiven time. CTA requires the Operators seeking their overtime payto complete and submit the pay slip at the end of each workday forwhich they seek additional compensation.

The pay slip can be quite difficult to complete, and often requiresOperators to remain at the garage long after they have completedtheir work day if they wish to secure the compensation due to them.As a result of the time required to complete a pay slip, manyOperators, including Plaintiff Taylor, are forced to forego theadditional compensation to which they are entitled. Operators who,in many cases, have spent thirteen or more hours away from homesimply cannot commit the time and energy required to complete thepay slip for uncompensated time that often amounts to less than thetime they would spend completing the pay slip at the end of a longworkday, the lawsuit says.[BN]

CHICAGO, IL: Hernandez et al. Allege Political Discrimination-------------------------------------------------------------HECTOR HERNANDEZ and CHARLES TERMINI, individually, and on behalfof all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. JAMIE RHEE,in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Department ofAviation; WILLIAM HELM, in his individual capacity; JOSEPH ALESIA,in his individual capacity; KEVIN MARTIN, in his individualcapacity; and, the CITY OF CHICAGO, as a municipal corporation andas indemnitor, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-07647 (N.D. Ill.,Nov. 17, 2018), accuse the Defendants of political discriminationand retaliation in violation of the First Amendment pursuant to 42U.S.C. section 1983, and violation of Plaintiffs' rights to freepolitical association, and as whistleblowers under Illinois'Whistleblower Act for bullying and immense mistreatment they havesuffered following their reporting of the political discriminationto the City IG.

The Plaintiffs also allege violation of their federalconstitutional rights and Illinois' Whistleblower Act to be freefrom retaliation for acts of exposing and reporting governmentcorruption with the City's IG relating to the politicaldiscrimination.

The lawsuit says Mr. Hernandez is a Motor Truck Driver withChicago's Department of Aviation who has been deprived ofsubstantial overtime and preferred assignments and equipmentbecause he has refused to engage in forced political work forcertain Democratic precincts on and off City time at the behest ofDefendants. This overtime disparity is primarily explained by actsof political discrimination orchestrated by Defendants, withovertime at O'Hare Airport among the MTDs being distributed, atleast in significant, substantial part, as remuneration forpolitical favors conducted for certain Democratic precincts on andoff duty by MTDs are the expectation of Defendants, the lawsuitsays.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Defendants own and operate "ClassicTransporters, Inc.," which is a company that provides non-emergencymedical transportation to its customers. The Defendants employedPlaintiff and other similarly situated employees as “drivers."The Defendants implemented and continue to implement a company-widepolicy that deprives their drivers of proper overtime wages andresults in these employees receiving sub-minimum wages.

These violations stem in part from Defendants' impropermisclassification of its drivers as "independent contractors," andits payment structure whereby Defendants allege to pay theirdrivers a flat rate per day. The Defendant failed to compensatePlaintiff and other similarly situated drivers at a rate of atleast one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all ofthe hours that they worked over 40 each work week. The Defendants'payment structure also often resulted in Plaintiff’s, and thosesimilarly situated drivers, regular hourly rate equating to lessthan the applicable minimum wage in one or more work weeks, thelawsuit says.

Classic Transport provides transportation services for recreationalvehicle and utility trucks. The company also offers vehicle towingservices.[BN]

CLEARWAY ENERGY: Bid to Quash Service of Summons in Braun Granted-----------------------------------------------------------------Clearway Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the court in BraunLitigation issued a ruling granting the defendants' motion to quashservice of summons.

On April 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a putative class action lawsuitagainst the Company, the current and former members of its board ofdirectors individually, and other parties in California SuperiorCourt in Kern County, California.

On July 30, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to thedefendants' motion to quash service of the summons and anopposition to the defendants' demurrer. On October 5, 2018, thedefendants filed a reply memorandum of points and authorities insupport of defendants' demurrer to the first amended complaint, anda reply memorandum of points and authorities in support ofdefendants' motion to quash service of summons.

On November 1, 2018, the court issued a ruling granting thedefendants' motion to quash service of summons.

Clearway Energy, Inc., through its subsidiaries, acquires, owns,and operates contracted renewable and conventional generation, andthermal infrastructure assets in the United States. The company wasfounded in 2012 and is based in Princeton, New Jersey. ClearwayEnergy, Inc. is a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff did not have a businessrelationship with Comdata. On or about August 15, 2018, atapproximately 1:21 p.m., Comdata began sending Plaintiff textmessages to his cellular telephone ending in "3058", from the shortcode 303-52. The Plaintiff received two more identical textmessages, one on or about August 17, 2018, at approximately 8:16a.m. and on or about September 9, 2018, at approximately 12:06 p.m.Annoyed by the repeated, frequent text messages, Plaintiff repliedto Defendant immediately responded to that "STOP" text message.

Despite having confirmed the request for text messages to cease,less than a week later Plaintiff received another text message fromthe 303-52 short code used or owned by Defendant. Specifically, onor around September 15, 2018, at approximately 7:49 a.m. Plaintiffreceived a text message identical to the September 9, 2018, textmessage. Now extremely annoyed and frustrated, Plaintiff againresponded to the text message with the word "STOP", to whichDefendant provided an identical text message stating that Plaintiffhad opted out of receiving text messages and would no longerreceive messages However, these unwanted text message did not stop,the lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and members of thePlaintiff Class, on a regular basis worked in excess of 40 hours ina workweek without pay at a rate of time and one-half for all suchhours pursuant to the requirements of the federal, state andmunicipal statutes. The Plaintiffs were paid bi-monthly for twowork weeks each. The Defendant placed Plaintiffs on staggered,unbalanced schedules such that they worked fewer than 40 hours inone work week of the pay period and more than 40 hours the otherwork week. However, Defendant paid only for overtime hours workedin excess of 80 in two-week period instead of properly payingovertime for hours worked in excess of 40 in each individual workweek within the two-week pay period, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Attorney for Plaintiff, and all other Plaintiffs similarlysituated, known or unknown:

According to the complaint, Mr. Zwanetz and other FLSA Classmembers are similarly situated inasmuch as they have been -- andare -- required to work more than 40 hours per week withoutreceiving overtime compensation. The Defendants have known that Mr.Zwanetz and the FLSA Class members have performed work that hasrequired overtime compensation, yet the Defendants have nonethelessoperated under a scheme to deprive Mr. Zwanetz and the FLSA Classof overtime compensation by failing to properly compensate suchindividuals for the time they have worked, the lawsuit says.

Costco operates a series of eponymous large retail shopping centersthroughout the United States. While a typical Costco storeprimarily sells products in bulk quantities, these stores alsooperate as fora for myriad rotating display stands at whichspecialty products are sold by one or more salespersons.[BN]

CRES PROPERTY: Ware Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class & Subclass-----------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiff moves for certification of the matter captionedKellie Ware, plaintiff on behalf of herself and on behalf allsimilarly situated persons v. Geoffrey Modderman, et al., Case No.1:18-cv-00713-TSB (S.D. Ohio), under Claim One for class treatmentconsisting of both a general class, as well as a subclass.

The proposed classes are defined as:

* The General FDCPA Class:

This class consists of the Plaintiff and each person who was sued for eviction by Defendant Modderman within 1 year of October 9, 2018 and thereafter in any court of competent jurisdiction, in Ohio, where such eviction complaint contained a second count for money mentioning, seeking or praying for $10,000 in back rent and for alleged damages to the rental unit.

* The FDCPA subclass:

This subclass consists of the Plaintiff and each person who was sued for eviction by Defendant Modderman on behalf of a property managed by the Defendant Cres Property Management within 1 year of October 9, 2018 and thereafter in any court of competent jurisdiction, in Ohio, where such eviction complaint contained a second count for money mentioning, seeking or praying for $10,000 000 in back rent and for alleged damages to the rental unit.

Ms. Ware has brought this case as a class action against DefendantsGeoffrey Modderman and Cres Property Management and for allegedviolations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.[CC]

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class regularlyand routinely performed non-exempt labor duties on behalf ofDefendants at their Dunkin' Donuts franchised restaurants. TheDefendants did not compensate Plaintiff and other similarlysituated employees of Defendants, for all hours worked in excess of40 per week at the applicable FLSA overtime rate of pay, thelawsuit says.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as an assistantmanager for DTLR, a Maryland corporation headquartered at 1300Mercedes Drive, Suite J-T, Hanover Maryland. DTLR is "one of thecountry’s most successful lifestyle retailers" with over 250stores in 19 states.

DTLR did not pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees properovertime wages of one and one-half time their regular rate of payfor all hours worked above forty hours in a work week. By way ofexample, DTLR did not pay Plaintiff one and one-half times her fullregular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in anindividual work week for the pay periods of: (a) 5/27/18-6/9/2018(b) 6/24/2018-7/7/2018; (c) 8/5/2018-8/18/2018. While certainovertime compensation was paid, the Defendant failed to pay for allhours worked over forty in a work week at one and one-half timesher regular rate of pay, the lawsuit says.[BN]

According to the complaint, during 2018, the Plaintiff was onlypaid for the first 40 hours of every work week even though heworked an average of 50 hours per week during the year. TheDefendants paid Plaintiff a straight $15.00 an hour only for thefirst 40 hours regardless of the actual number of hours Plaintiffworked. During a span of 45 weeks, the Plaintiff worked an averageof 50 hours per week.

The Defendants failed to ever pay Plaintiff one-and-one-half timeshis regular hourly rate for any hours worked in excess of 40 perweek. Accordingly, during this employment period, the Plaintiff isowed one-and-one-half times in the amount of $22.50 per hour for 10hours per week for 45 weeks. In total, during this employmentperiod, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover $225.00 per week for atotal of $10,125.00 in unliquidated damages. However, Defendants'actions were intentional and/or willful and Plaintiff is thereforeentitled to an additional amount of liquidated (double) damages forwages in the amount of $10,125.00, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant is an air conditioning repair, maintenance, andservice company that has been operating in the State of Floridasince 2013.[BN]

DYCK O'NEAL: Robbins Sues over Debt Collection Practices--------------------------------------------------------STEPHEN ROBBINS, on behalf of himself and all those similarlysituated, the Plaintiff, vs. DYCK O'NEAL INC., the Defendant, Case2:18-cv-02623 (D. Kan., Nov. 19, 2018), alleges that Defendantunlawfully deceived and misled consumers by attempting to collectalleged debts through unfair or unconscionable means and byimpermissibly seeking repayment of debts that have been cancelledby the original creditor or some previous assignee, in violationsof the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and The Kansas ConsumerProtection Act.

According to the complaint, each of Dyck O'Neal's repeated callsand or direct-to-voicemail messages to Plaintiff and the members ofthe class made without prior, express authorization violated 47U.S.C section 227(b). As a direct and proximate result ofDefendant's willful and or negligent refusal to comply with theTCPA, the Plaintiff and the members of the class have sufferedloss and damage including, but not limited to: intrusion intoseclusion, violation of rights secured by federal statute,expenditure of significant time, energy and out-of-pocket costs,considerable distress, mental anguish, worry, frustration, fear andembarrassment, the lawsuit says.

Dyck-O'Neal, incorporated in 1988, is a leading nationwidepurchaser, collector and servicer of real estate deficiencies,first and second mortgage notes.[BN]

ETSY INC: Cervantes and Weiss Class Actions Dismissed-----------------------------------------------------Etsy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2018, that the court has grantedplaintiffs' request to dismiss the consolidated Cervantes and Weissactions with prejudice.

On July 21, 2015, a purported securities class action complaint(Cervantes v. Dickerson, et.al., Case No. CIV 534768) was filed inthe Superior Court of State of California, County of San Mateoagainst the Company, certain officers, directors, and underwriters.

The complaint asserted violations of Sections 11 and 15 of theSecurities Act. The complaint alleged misrepresentations in theCompany's Registration Statement on Form S-1 and Prospectus withrespect to, among other things, merchandise for sale on theCompany's website that may be counterfeit or constitute trademarkor copyright infringement. The complaint sought certification as aclass action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest andattorneys' fees.

On December 7, 2015, the Company and the underwriter defendantsmoved to stay the Cervantes action on the grounds of forum nonconveniens.

On November 5, 2015, another purported securities class actioncomplaint (Weiss v. Etsy et al., No. CIV 536123) was filed in theSuperior Court of State of California, County of San Mateo. TheWeiss complaint named as defendants the Company and the sameofficers, directors, and underwriters named in the Cervantescomplaint, and also asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of theSecurities Act based on allegedly false or misleading statements oromissions with respect to, among other things, merchandise for saleon the Company's website that may be counterfeit or constitutetrademark or copyright infringement.

On December 24, 2015, the court consolidated the Cervantes andWeiss actions. On February 3, 2016, the court granted the Company'smotion to stay the consolidated actions. On September 19, 2018, thecourt granted plaintiffs' request to dismiss the consolidatedCervantes and Weiss actions with prejudice.

Etsy, Inc. operates Etsy.com, a commerce platform to make, sell,and buy goods online and offline primarily in the United States,United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, France, and Germany. It providesvarious seller services and tools that are designed to helpentrepreneurs for starting, managing, and scaling their businesses.Etsy, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Brooklyn,New York.

According to the complaint, the case is a federal securities classaction on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other thanDefendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Evoqua securities onthe open market between November 6, 2017 and October 30, 2018, bothdates inclusive. Evoqua purports to be a leading provider ofmission critical water treatment solutions, offering services,systems and technologies to support our customers' full waterlifecycle needs. With over 200,000 installations worldwide, theCompany holds leading positions in the industrial, commercial andmunicipal water treatment markets in North America. Evoqua offers aportfolio of differentiated, proprietary technology solutions soldunder a number of brands. Evoqua claims that the customer intimacycreated through its service network is a significant competitiveadvantage. According to the complaint, Defendants made materiallyfalse and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants madefalse and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:(i) Evoqua failed to successfully integrate its prior acquisitions;(ii) Evoqua was experiencing supply chain disruptions influenced bytariffs and an extended delay on a large aquatics project; and(iii) as a result of the foregoing, Evoqua’s public statementswere materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On October 30, 2018, Evoqua announced its preliminary financialresults for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ended September 30,2018, which fell below the Company’s and analyst's expectations.Evoqua stated that the shortfalls were "primarily due toacquisition system integration issues, supply chain disruptionsinfluenced by tariffs and an extended delay on a large aquaticsproject." On this news, Evoqua's stock price fell $4.78 per share,or 34.64%, to close at $9.02 on October 30, 2018. As a result ofDefendants’ false and/or misleading statements, Evoqua securitiestraded at inflated prices. However, after disclosure of Defendants'false and/or misleading statements, Evoqua's stock suffered aprecipitous decline in market value, thereby causing significantlosses and damages to Plaintiff and other Class members, thelawsuit says.

Evoqua was incorporated in 2013 and is headquartered in Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania. Evoqua’s common stock trades on the New York StockExchange under the ticker symbol "AQUA."[BN]

FACEBOOK INC: Schmidt Sues over Data Breach-------------------------------------------JASPER SCHMIDT, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated, the Plaintiff, vs. FACEBOOK Inc., a Delaware Corporation,the Defendant, Case 3:18-cv-06953-LB (N.D. Cal., Nov. 16, 2018),seeks to enjoin Defendant from engaging in further negligent,deceptive, unfair, and unlawful business practices in relation todata breach.

According to the complaint, Facebook operates the world's largestsocial media platform with over two billion users. Facebookrequires that its users, including Plaintiff and the class members,give Facebook their personally identifiable information ("PII") touse the website. Facebook collects thousands of PII data pointsincluding: users' names, email address, telephone numbers, dates ofbirth, credit card numbers, private messages, locations, educationand work history, and photographs. Users expect that Facebook willprotect and keep their personal information secure, becauseFacebook explicitly says it will do just that.

However, over the course of the last year it has been revealed thatFacebook has failed its users multiple times and has allowedunimpeded access to their accounts. Facebook first allowed athird-party company to access millions of users' PII. Then Facebook allowed that company to use its advertising tools totarget advertisements at users' based on their stolen information.Facebook did not investigate this breach and did not provide noticeto users until a whistleblower revealed the breach to the Guardian.

Facebook's blase attitude towards users' PII has continued, andFacebook revealed on September 28, 2018 that its inadequatesecurity resulted in a data breach that potentially affected over50 million users. The breach allowed hackers to effectively take 18over a user's account and steal all the information, including PII,they had put on the site. Facebook first learned of an unusualspike of activity on September 14, 2018, but did not notify usersfor 14 days. The vulnerability in Facebook's code that attackersexploited has existed since 2017, and Facebook does not currentlyknow how long hackers had access to accounts. Instead ofimmediately informing users that their accounts may have beenacked, Facebook decided to just log users out of their accountswithout telling them why it was happening. Facebook has admittedthat "attackers exploited a vulnerability in Facebook's code thatimpacted 'view as,' a feature that lets people see what their ownprofile looks like to someone else. This allowed them to stealFacebook access tokens which they could then use to take overpeople’s accounts. Access tokens are equivalent to a digital keythat allowed users to stay logged in to Facebook so that they donot need to re-enter their password every time they used Facebook.

On October 12, 2018, Facebook provided further details of thebreach and claimed that of the original 50 million people whoseaccess tokens Facebook thought was affected, about 30 millionactually had their tokens stolen. Because of Facebook's inadequatesecurity measures and its unreasonable delay in notifying users ofthe breach, Plaintiff's and class members' PII has beencompromised. Plaintiff and class members have suffered harm in thattheir PII has lost value and they must now undertake additionalsecurity measures to minimize the risk of identity theft. Even withthat, Plaintiff and the class members have no way to completelymitigate the effects of this data breach as hackers had access tophotographs and private messages that now can never be removed fromthe internet.[BN]

FACIAL REJUVENATION: Sued over Telemarketing Text Messages----------------------------------------------------------LAURA MONTANARI, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, the Plaintiff, vs. FACIAL REJUVENATION OF SOUTH FLORIDA,LLC D/B/A MD AGELESS SOLUTIONS, a Florida Limited LiabilityCompany, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-24813-KMW (S.D. Fla., Nov.16, 2018), asks the Court to halt Defendant's illegal conduct,which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands ofindividuals, and seeks statutory damages on behalf of herself andmembers of the class, and any other available legal or equitableremedies under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a multidisciplinarymedical spa specializing in regenerative and aesthetic medicine. Topromote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing,harming thousands of consumers in the process. On or about June 13,2018, Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff'scellular telephone number ending in 0419. The Defendant's textmessages were transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone, andwithin the time frame relevant to this action. The Defendant's textmessages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged thefuture purchase or investment in property, goods, or services,i.e., selling Plaintiff various regenerative and aesthetictherapies and medicine.

The information contained in the text message advertisesDefendant's services offered at "50% off", which Defendant sends topromote its business. At no point in time did Plaintiff provideDefendant with his express written consent to be contacted using anATDS. The Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 0419Number and is financially responsible for phone service to the 0419Number. The Plaintiff has been registered with the nationaldo-not-call registry since May 12, 2017, the lawsuit says.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked as a Mortgage LoanOfficer for the Defendant in Prescott, Arizona, performing loanorigination services in this District. The Defendant paid Plaintiffon an hourly basis, but failed to pay Plaintiff for all time workedbeyond forty hours in given workweeks at the required time andone-half premium overtime compensation rate, the lawsuit says.

FEDERAL SIGNAL: Status Hearing on Class Certification Bid Held--------------------------------------------------------------Federal Signal Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a further statushearing on class certification issues was scheduled for December 4,2018, in the Hearing Loss Litigation.

The Company has been sued for monetary damages by firefighters whoclaim that exposure to the Company's sirens has impaired theirhearing and that the sirens are therefore defective. There were 33cases filed during the period of 1999 through 2004, involving atotal of 2,443 plaintiffs, in the Circuit Court of Cook County,Illinois.

These cases involved more than 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs fromlocations outside of Chicago. In 2009, six additional cases werefiled in Cook County, involving 299 Pennsylvania firefighterplaintiffs. During 2013, another case was filed in Cook Countyinvolving 74 Pennsylvania firefighter plaintiffs.

The trial of the first 27 of these plaintiffs' claims occurred in2008, whereby a Cook County jury returned a unanimous verdict infavor of the Company.

An additional 40 Chicago firefighter plaintiffs were selected fortrial in 2009. Plaintiffs' counsel later moved to reduce the numberof plaintiffs from 40 to nine. The trial for these nine plaintiffsconcluded with a verdict against the Company and for the plaintiffsin varying amounts totaling $0.4 million. The Company appealed thisverdict.

On September 13, 2012, the Illinois Appellate Court rejected thisappeal. The Company thereafter filed a petition for rehearing withthe Illinois Appellate Court, which was denied on February 7, 2013.The Company sought further review by filing a petition for leave toappeal with the Illinois Supreme Court on March 14, 2013.

On May 29, 2013, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a summary orderdeclining to accept review of this case. On July 1, 2013, theCompany satisfied the judgments entered for these plaintiffs, whichhas resulted in final dismissal of these cases.

A third consolidated trial involving eight Chicago firefighterplaintiffs occurred during November 2011. The jury returned aunanimous verdict in favor of the Company at the conclusion of thistrial.

Following this trial, on March 12, 2012 the trial court entered anorder certifying a class of the remaining Chicago Fire Departmentfirefighter plaintiffs for trial on the sole issue of whether theCompany's sirens were defective and unreasonably dangerous. TheCompany petitioned the Illinois Appellate Court for interlocutoryappeal of this ruling. On May 17, 2012, the Illinois AppellateCourt accepted the Company's petition.

On June 8, 2012, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal, agreeingwith the Company that the trial court had erred in certifying aclass action trial in this matter. Pursuant to plaintiffs' motion,the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the trial court'scertification order.

Thereafter, the trial court scheduled a fourth consolidated trialinvolving three firefighter plaintiffs, which began in December2012. Prior to the start of this trial, the claims of two of thethree firefighter plaintiffs were dismissed. On December 17, 2012,the jury entered a complete defense verdict for the Company.

Following this defense verdict, plaintiffs again moved to certify aclass of Chicago Fire Department plaintiffs for trial on the soleissue of whether the Company's sirens were defective andunreasonably dangerous. Over the Company's objection, the trialcourt granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March11, 2013 and scheduled a class action trial to begin on June 10,2013. The Company filed a petition for review with the IllinoisAppellate Court on March 29, 2013 seeking reversal of the classcertification order.

On June 25, 2014, a unanimous three-judge panel of the FirstDistrict Illinois Appellate Court issued its opinion reversing theclass certification order of the trial court. Specifically, theAppellate Court determined that the trial court's ruling failed tosatisfy the class-action requirements that the common issues of thefirefighters' claims predominate over the individual issues andthat there is an adequate representative for the class.

During a status hearing on October 8, 2014, plaintiffs representedto the Court that they would again seek to certify a class offirefighters on the issue of whether the Company's sirens weredefective and unreasonably dangerous. On January 12, 2015,plaintiffs filed motions to amend their complaints to add classaction allegations with respect to Chicago firefighter plaintiffsas well as the approximately 1,800 firefighter plaintiffs fromlocations outside of Chicago. On March 11, 2015, the trial courtgranted plaintiff's motions to amend their complaints. On April 24,2015, the cases were transferred to Cook County chancery court,which will decide all class certification issues.

On March 23, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify as a classall firefighters from the Chicago Fire Department who have filedlawsuits in this matter. The Company has served discovery uponplaintiffs related to this motion and intends to continue itsobjections to any attempt at certification. A further statushearing on class certification issues has been scheduled forDecember 4, 2018.

Federal Signal Corporation, together with its subsidiaries,designs, manufactures, and supplies a suite of products andintegrated solutions for municipal, governmental, industrial, andcommercial customers in the United States, Canada, Europe, andinternationally. It operates through two segments, EnvironmentalSolutions Group and Safety and Security Systems Group. FederalSignal Corporation was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in OakBrook, Illinois.

FIRST CHOICE: Schaffer & Fabricant Sue over Telemarketing Calls---------------------------------------------------------------JAMES SCHAFFER and TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf ofall others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. FIRST CHOICEPAYMENT SOLUTIONS G.P., d/b/a SEKURE MERCHANT SOLUTIONS, theDefendant, Case 8:18-cv-01981 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 5, 2018), allegesthat Sekure, despite having settled a prior class action lawsuitover alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,continued to engage in automated telemarketing in violation of theTCPA using automated calls and pre-recorded messages that were sentto cellular telephones. Because telemarketing campaigns generallyplace calls to hundreds thousands or even millions of potentialcustomers en masse, and because Plaintiff's investigation hasrevealed facts—as set forth below—indicating that he was thetarget of one such massive company, Plaintiff brings this action onbehalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who receivedillegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendant.

Sekure offers various payment technologies for businesses. One ofSekure's strategies for marketing its payment services andgenerating new customers is telemarketing. Sekure's telemarketinginvolves the use of an automatic telephone dialing system tosolicit business. Sekure uses ATDS equipment that has the capacityto store or produce telephone numbers to be called, that includesautodialers and predictive dialers and that plays a prerecordedmessage once the calls connect.

The dialing system used by Sekure is the Five9 predictive dialer,dialing system that is subject to the TCPA's ATDS protections. TheFive predictive dialer works by loading a list of telephone numberselectronically into the dialer, and with the push of a singlebutton, calls are made automatically and sequentially from thatlist. Sekure has engaged in this conduct despite the fact that itwas previously sued for violating the TCPA's ATDS provisions andentered into a class action settlement. Recipients of these calls,including Plaintiffs, did not consent to receive such telephonecalls, the lawsuit days.[BN]

Attorney for Terry Fabricant and James Schaffer and the ProposedClass:

According to the complaint, the case is a federal securities classaction on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other thanDefendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Fitbit securitiesbetween August 2, 2016 through January 30, 2017, both datesinclusive. Fitbit is a technology company focused on deliveringhealth solutions that impact health outcomes. The Fitbit platformcombines wearable devices with software and services to give ourusers tools to help them reach their health and fitness goals,augmented by general purpose features that add further utility anddrive user engagement trackers and smartwatches, enable our usersto view data about their daily activity, exercise and sleep inreal-time. Its wearable devices, which include health and fitnessThe core of the Company's platform is its family of wearabledevices. These devices automatically track users’ daily steps,calories burned, distance traveled, and active minutes, and displayreal-time feedback to encourage users to become more active intheir daily lives. Most of its wearable devices also measure floorsclimbed, and sleep duration and quality, and its more advancedproducts track heart rate, and GPS-based information such as speed,distance, and exercise routes. Several of its devices also havemore advanced features such as the ability to receive call and textnotifications, and our first smartwatch, Fitbit Ionic, offerscontactless payments, on-board music, notifications, and severalapps.

The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statementsregarding the Company's business, operational and compliancepolicies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleadingstatements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company wasfacing headwinds, caused by greater competition in the marketplace;(ii) the Company was failing to differentiate its products from itscompetitors, including Apple Inc's Watch; (iii) consequently,demand for Fitbit's products was faltering; (iv) the Companyoverstated its financial guidance; and (v) as a result, theCompany's public statements were materially false and misleading atall relevant times.

On November 2, 2016, Fitbit issued a press release announcing itsfinancial results for the third fiscal quarter of 2016, whichdisclosed that it was lowering its full year 2016 revenue guidanceto "between $2.320 billion and $2.345 billion," down from thepreviously-announced "$2.5 to $2.6 billion." On this news, Fitbit'sshare price fell $4.30 per share, or 33.6%, to close at $8.51 pershare on November 3, 2016. On January 30, 2017, Fitbit issued apress release announcing its preliminary fourth fiscal quarter 2016financial results, which disclosed that the Company expected fourthquarter of 2016 revenue to be in the range of $572 million to $580million, rather than its previously announced guidance range of$725 million to $750 million. Fitbit further announced that itforecasted its annual revenue growth to be approximately 17%,rather than the previously announced forecast of 25% to 26%. Onthis news, Fitbit's share price fell $1.15 per share, or 16%, toclose at $6.06 per share on January 30, 2017. As a result ofDefendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitousdecline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiffand other Class members have suffered significant losses anddamages, the lawsuit says.[BN]

FMC CORP: Parties in Canadian Suit Agree to $2.5MM Settlement-------------------------------------------------------------FMC Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that plaintiffs in theCanadian class action suit and FMC have reached a settlementagreement providing for payment of CAD 3.25 million ($2.5million).

In 2005, after public disclosures of the U.S. federal grand juryinvestigation into the hydrogen peroxide industry (which resultedin no charges brought against the company) and the filing ofvarious class actions in U.S. federal and state courts, which haveall been settled, putative class actions against the company andfive other major hydrogen peroxide producers were filed inprovincial courts in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia under thelaws of Canada. The other five defendants have settled these claimsfor a total of approximately $20.6 million.

On September 28, 2009, the Ontario Superior Court of Justicecertified a class of direct and indirect purchasers of hydrogenperoxide from 1994 to 2005. The company's motion for leave toappeal the class certification decision was denied in June 2010.The case was largely dormant while the Canadian Supreme Courtconsidered, in different litigation, whether indirect purchasersmay recover overcharges in antitrust actions.

In October 2013 the Court ruled that such recovery is permissible.Thereafter, the plaintiffs' moved to dismiss certain downstreampurchasers (those who purchased products that contain hydrogenperoxide or were made using hydrogen peroxide) from the case and toreduce the class period to November 1, 1998 through December 31,2003 - thereby eliminating six of the eleven years of theoriginally certified class period. The Court approved this request.

Following an active period of discovery the plaintiffs approachedFMC for settlement negotiations in July 2018. The plaintiffs andFMC subsequently reached agreement and signed a settlementagreement on September 27, 2018, providing for a payment of CAD3.25 million ($2.5 million), which is recorded within "Accrued andother current liabilities" on the condensed consolidated balancesheets, to plaintiffs. This was recorded within "Discontinuedoperations, net of income taxes" on the condensed consolidatedstatements of income (loss).

FMC Corporation, a diversified chemical company, providessolutions, applications, and products for the agricultural,consumer, and industrial markets worldwide. The company operates intwo segments, FMC Agricultural Solutions and FMC Lithium. FMCCorporation was founded in 1883 and is headquartered inPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania.

FORTERRA INC: Class Suit over IPO Underway------------------------------------------A class action lawsuit over Forterra, Inc.'s initial publicoffering remains pending, the company said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018.

Beginning on August 14, 2017, four plaintiffs filed putative classaction complaints in the United States District Court for theEastern District of New York against a group of defendants thatvaries by complaint but includes the Company, certain members ofsenior management, the Board of Directors, Lone Star and certain ofits affiliates, and certain banks that acted as underwriters of theIPO (collectively or in groups that vary by complaint, the"defendants").

On August 14, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed byCharles Forrester; on August 16, 2017, a putative class actioncomplaint was filed by Supanin Disayawathana; on August 23, 2017 aputative class action complaint was filed by Matthew Spindler; andon September 27, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filedby Nancy Maloney, which complaint was subsequently voluntarilydismissed without prejudice to refiling (the four complaintstogether, the "Securities Lawsuits").

The Securities Lawsuits are brought by each plaintiff individuallyand on behalf of all persons who purchased Company securitiesduring an alleged class period that varies by complaint, butgenerally begins with the IPO in October 2016 and lasts through arange of dates from May 12, 2017 through August 14, 2017.

The Securities Lawsuits generally allege that the Company'sregistration statement on Form S-1 filed in connection with theIPO, and in the case of certain complaints, statements made by theCompany or the individual defendants at times after the IPO,contained false or misleading statements and/or omissions ofmaterial facts relating to (1) the lack of growth from organicsales versus sales from acquisitions, and the lack of organicgrowth related thereto, (2) increased pricing pressure on theCompany's products, (3) softness in the concrete and steel pressurepipe business, (4) operational problems at plants, includingproblems relating to defective products, (5) unpaid invoices forproducts and services that resulted in understated expenses, (6) anundisclosed material weakness in internal controls related toinventory, and (7) an undisclosed material weakness in internalcontrols relating to bill and hold transactions.

The Securities Lawsuits generally assert claims under Section 11 ofthe Securities Act of 1933, as amended ("Securities Act"), Section15 of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, andthey seek (1) class certification under the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure, (2) damages in an amount to be proven at trial, (3)prejudgment and post-judgment interest, (4) an award of reasonablecosts and expense of plaintiffs, including counsel and expert fees,(5) an award of rescission or a rescissionary measure of damages,and (6) equitable or other relief as deemed appropriate by thecourt.

On July 27, 2018, an order was entered consolidating the threeremaining Securities Lawsuits into a single action in the Forrestercase and transferring the venue of the case from the EasternDistrict of New York to the Northern District of Texas.

On September 17, 2018, an order was entered appointing WladislawMaciuga as lead plaintiff and approving his counsel as leadcounsel. The Court has also entered an order agreeing to a proposedschedule for plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint by November 30,2018 and deadlines under which the parties may file responsivepleadings and related briefing.

Forterra, Inc. manufactures and sells water and drainage pipe andproducts in the United States and Eastern Canada. It alsomanufactures structural and specialty precast products, and precastconcrete bridge girders; and pressure, prestressed concrete, andbar-wrapped concrete pipes. The company serves water-relatedinfrastructure applications, including water transmission,distribution, and drainage; and contractors, distributors,municipalities, and utilities waterworks. Forterra, Inc. wasfounded in 2016 and is headquartered in Irving, Texas.

FREEPORT VENTURES: Harris Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls------------------------------------------------------------KENT HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, the Plaintiff, vs. FREEPORT VENTURES, LLC d/b/a VALIANTAUTO LLC d/b/a and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-02049 (C.D. Cal., Nov 16. 2018),seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remediesresulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently,knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on his cellulartelephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,and related regulations, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around January 2018,Defendant contacted Plaintiff on his cellular telephone numberending in -1967, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchaseDefendant's services. Defendant contacted or attempted to contactPlaintiff from telephone numbers including, but not limited to(832) 241-8827 confirmed to be Defendant's number. Defendant'scalls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes asdefined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). The Defendant did notpossess Plaintiff's "prior 26 express consent" to receive callsusing an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial orprerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C.section 28 227(b)(1)(A).

The Plaintiff is not a customer of Defendant's services and hasnever provided any personal information, including her cellulartelephone number, to Defendant for any purpose whatsoever.Accordingly, Defendant never received Plaintiff's "prior expressconsent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialingsystem or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellulartelephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A), the lawsuitsays.[BN]

GC Services Limited Partnership provides accounts receivable andcustomer care solutions to public and private sector organizations.GC Services Limited Partnership was founded in 1957 and is based inHouston, Texas. It has call center locations in the United States,the Caribbean, and the Philippines. [BN]

GENERAL MILLS: Jackson Case Removed to S.D. California------------------------------------------------------General Mills, Inc. removed case captioned CHARLENE M. JACKSON,individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, thePlaintiff, vs GENERAL MILLS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 37-2018-00052079-CU-FR-CTL, fronthe San Diego County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court forthe Southern District of California on Nov. 16, 2018. The SouthernDistrict of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 18CV2634 LABBGS to the proceeding.

On October 12, 2018, Charlene M. Jackson filed a complaint in theSuperior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego,against General Mills, alleging violation of the Class ActionFairness Act of 2005.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Defendants hired Plaintiff as anexcavating laborer and he has done so for the Defendants for overfour years working every week of the year for a number of hours farexceeding 40 hours. The Plaintiff was never paid overtime, and wasnever paid for a length of time, and has never received anybenefits from the Defendants which other similarly situated mayhave received. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employeesregularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week, the lawsuitsays.[BN]

GOGO INC: Still Defends Pierrelouis Class Action in Illinois------------------------------------------------------------Gogo Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2018, that the company still defendsfrom a purported class action suit entitled, Pierrelouis v. GogoInc.

On June 27, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed aputative class action lawsuit in the United States District Courtfor the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division styledPierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., naming the Company, its former ChiefExecutive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and its current ChiefExecutive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and President,Commercial Aviation as defendants purportedly on behalf of allpurchasers of our securities from February 27, 2017 through May 7,2018.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions bythe company purporting to relate to its 2Ku antenna's reliabilityand installation and remediation costs. The plaintiffs seek torecover from the company and the individual defendants anunspecified amount of damages.

Gogo said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and intendto defend them vigorously. In accordance with Delaware law, we willindemnify the individual named defendants for their defense costsand any damages they incur in connection with the suit. We havefiled a claim with the issuer of our Directors' and Officers'insurance policy with respect to this suit. No amounts have beenaccrued for any potential losses under this matter, as we cannotreasonably predict the outcome of the litigation or any potentiallosses."

Gogo Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides inflight broadbandconnectivity and wireless entertainment services to the aviationindustry in the United States and internationally. It operatesthrough three segments: Commercial Aviation North America (CA-NA),Commercial Aviation Rest of World (CA-ROW), and Business Aviation(BA). The company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered inChicago, Illinois.

According to the complaint, the Defendant employed call centersales employees, referred to herein as call center customer supportrepresentatives. The Defendant employed these CSRs, includingPlaintiff, in a call center facility in Sacramento, California. TheDefendant employs over one hundred CSRs to provide customer supportto its clients via inbound phone calls. The Defendant required itsCSRs to work a full-time schedule, plus overtime. However,Defendant did not actually or accurately record their CSRs'compensable work time as required by law.

The Defendant knew or could have easily determined how long it tookfor their CSRs to complete their unpaid work, and Defendant couldhave properly compensated Plaintiff and the putative Class for thiswork, but they did not. Furthermore, the Defendant systematicallyfailed to properly calculate Plaintiff and other CSRs' regularhourly rate by failing to include all remuneration in the regularrate calculation, the lawsuit says.

This case arises from Defendant's unauthorized text messages tocellular subscribers who never provided Defendant with priorexpress consent, as well as subscribers who expressly requested notto receive Defendant's text messages or who had revoked any priorexpress consent. Defendant caused thousands of unsolicited textmessages to be sent to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff andClass Members, causing them injuries, including invasion of theirprivacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass,and conversion, the lawsuit says.

GoSmith, Inc. provides home improvement contracting services in theUnited States. The company was founded in 2012 and is based inSunnyvale, California.[BN]

GR INTL: Sued over Unsolicited Telemarketing Text Messages----------------------------------------------------------ISAIAH VARONA, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, the Plaintiff, vs. GR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATING GROUPINC. D/B/A TORRENTE KITCHEN & BATH, a Florida Corporation, theDefendant, Case 0:18-cv-62661-KMM (S.D. Fla., Nov. 2, 2018), seeksto secure redress for violations of the Telephone ConsumerProtection Act, and injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegalconduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands ofindividuals.

According to the complaint, Defendant is corporation that sells avariety of cabinets and countertops for kitchen and bathrooms. Topromote its services, Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing,harming thousands of consumers in the process. On or about July 8,2018, Defendant sent telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff'scellular telephone number ending in 1068 Defendant's text messageswere transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone, and within thetime frame relevant to this action.

The Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because theyencouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, orservices, i.e., selling Plaintiff cabinets and countertops. Theinformation contained in the text message advertises Defendant'sspecials by stating, "THIS IS A COUPON of DISCOUNT!", whichDefendant sends to promote its business. The Plaintiff received thesubject texts within this judicial district and, therefore,Defendant's violation of the TCPA occurred within this district.The Defendant caused other text messages to be sent to individualsresiding within this judicial district. At no point in time didPlaintiff provide Defendant with his express written consent to becontacted using an automatic telephone dialing system, the lawsuitsays.[BN]

HAUTE COIFFURE: Fails to Pay for Overtime, Lemus Says-----------------------------------------------------ELENA LEMUS, on behalf of herself and all persons similarlysituated, Plaintiff, vs. HAUTE COIFFURE, INC. and GEORGE SALEH, theDefendants, Case No.: 18-3446E (Mass. Super. Ct., Nov. 5, 2018),alleges that Defendants violated Massachusetts wage payment lawsincluding the Massachusetts Wage Act and the Massachusetts MinimumFair Wage Law by failing to pay the Plaintiff for all hours workedand for hours worked in excess of 40 per week at the rate of oneand one-half times her regular hourly rate.

Accoridng to the complaint, Haute Coiffure is a hair salon. ThePlaintiff began working for the Defendants in or around April 2014as a hair stylist. The Plaintiff's last date of work for theDefendants was on or about November 3, 2017. The Plaintiffs regularwork hours were from 9:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., approximately 10 hoursper day. Prior to March 2016, Plaintiff worked 5 days per week,approximately 50 hours per week. From March 2016 to August 2017,Plaintiff worked 6 days per week, approximately 60 hours per week.From August 2017 to November 2017, Plaintiff worked 5 days perweek, approximately 50 hours per week. The Defendants paidPlaintiff and the other stylists a fixed amount per week and didnot pay -- any extra amount for overtime hours in excess of 40 perweek. For example, when Plaintiff worked 6 days per week, she waspaid S650 per week, plus tips. When Plaintiff worked 5 days perweek, she was paid $500 per week, plus tips. During the weeks inwhich Plaintiff and the other stylists worked 40 or more hours,Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and the other stylists overtimewages at one and one-half times their regular hourly rate, thelawsuit says.[BN]

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Henry Hamiltonfiled a complaint against Defendants Amy Leeann Inman, Judge CalvinRagland, Glenda Overbey, and City of Hayti, alleging violation ofhis civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (count I) forconspiring to deprive him of his rights under the Fourth, Eighth,and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. ThePlaintiff maintains that the Defendants violated his right to befree from unreasonable seizure, custodial arrest, and imprisonmentfor the alleged ordinance violations; to be free from prosecutionnot based on probable cause; to be released from imprisonment; tohave his case heard and adjudicated before being compelled to pleadguilty or prepay fines and court costs under the guise of a cashonly bond; and to promptly be brought before a judge for an initialappearance and released at the time of arrest.

The appellate case is captioned as Henry Hamilton v. CalvinRagland, et al., Case No. 18-3450, in the United States Court ofAppeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN]

According to the complaint, Washeeta Wiley worked as a home cleanerfor Maid Complete from about August 2016 to May 2018. StephanieShortridge worked as a home cleaner for Maid Complete from October2016 to May 2018. Steve Foster worked as a home cleaner for MaidComplete from about October 2016 to May 2018. Maid Completemisclassified Plaintiffs and all of its other home cleanersnationwide as independent contractors when they are in factemployees under federal and (for those 14 workers who worked inCalifornia) California law.

As a result, Defendants illegally deducted wages, withheld tips,failed to pay overtime or provide off-duty meal and rest periods,failed to reimburse business expenses, provide accurate wagestatements, and committed other violations of the FLSA and theCalifornia Labor Code, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Accoridng to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked a total of 288hours per month, and was paid an average of $2,500.00 dollars permonth. Notwithstanding, Hibachi Express and Xie willfully andintentionally failed/refused to pay to Plaintiff the federallyrequired minimum and overtime rates for all hours he worked, andalso unlawfully kept Plaintiff's tips.

Hibachi Express and Xie knew of the minimum and overtimerequirements of the FLSA and willfully, intentionally or recklesslyfailed to investigate whether their payroll practices were inaccordance with the FLSA. As a result, Plaintiff has suffereddamages and is entitled to receive overtime and minimum wagecompensation, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiffs were "back of the house" kitchen staff and "front ofthe house" waitstaff employed in the Defendants' restaurant. For atime prior to filing this Complaint, the Defendants willfullycommitted violations of the FLSA and the NYLL by failing to keepaccurate time records, failing to pay the Plaintiffs minimum wageby using an unlawful tip-credit, failing to pay a spread of hourspremium, and not paying Plaintiffs their gratuities.

The Defendants utilized a tip credit to avoid having to pay thefront of the house waitstaff the full statutory Minimum Wage underthe NYLL and FLSA. The Defendants did not provide the Plaintiffswith proper notice to utilize a tip credit, did not keep accuratetrack of the Plaintiffs work hours, did not pay the statutorilyrequired direct wage, took too large a tip credit, failed toprovide statutory wage notices. Because the Defendants did not takethe necessary steps to utilize a proper tip credit and retainedemployee tips, the Plaintiffs were paid less than the Federal andNew York State minimum wage for each hour worked. Additionally, thedefendants paid the back of the house kitchen staff a cash salarywage and required them to work more than 40 hours each workweekwithout receiving overtime. The Defendants did not pay the back ofthe house staff minimum wage or overtime, the lawsuit says.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Product's uniformmisrepresentations and omissions deceive and mislead reasonableconsumers to believe that the Product is Octopus, when in reality,it is Squid, which is cheaper, lower quality and more abundant thanOctopus. Octopus is a rarer and more highly sought-after fooddelicacy than Giant Squid. As the supplier, packager, and importerof the Squid, Orbe knows or should know that it is not Octopus. Asthe distributor of the Squid, Iberia knows or should know that itis not Octopus. However, despite this, Defendants jointly causedthe Squid to be imported, supplied, and marketed to United Statesconsumers as Octopus. Defendants both profit far more by sellingcheap Squid as Octopus, to the detriment of reasonable consumers,like Plaintiff and members of the Class.

The Plaintiff and members of the putative Class have sufferedinjury in fact, lost money or property, and suffered economicdamages as a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct in callingthe Product Octopus, when it is really Squid. The Product is simplynot what it was represented to be. The Defendants' false andmisleading representations and omissions violate state and federallaw as detailed more fully below, including New York GeneralBusiness Law section 349, New York General Business Law section 350and common law, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The case is a federal securities class action on behalf of allpersons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired IGC commonstock between September 26, 2018 and October 29, 2018, both daysinclusive. The Company's entry into the cannabinoid businessattracted widespread attention, and particularly its announcementthat it would be entering a partnership to launch ahemp/CBD-infused energy drink called "Nitro-G" on September 25,2018. The Company made this announcement via press releases.

According to the complaint, within one week of the Company'sannouncement, the Company's stock rocketed 458%. Also during thisweek, the Company conducted an at-the-market stock offeringannounced on September 22, 2018, raising $30 million in capital.The statements referenced in 11 16-17 above were materially falseand/or misleading because they misinterpreted and failed todisclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company'sbusiness and operations which were known to Defendants orrecklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made falseand/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) IGCwas engaged in ventures or promotions which it had not developed tocommercial stage (ii) IGC or its management had engaged inoperations contrary to the public interest; and (iii) that as aresult of the foregoing, IGC's public statements were materiallyfalse and misleading at all relevant times, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talcuse and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades,none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketinginformed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of theProducts in the genital area could lead to an increased risk ofovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powderlabel are to "keep powder away from child's face to avoidinhalation, which can cause breathing problems," and to "avoidcontact with eyes", the lawsuit says.[BN]

JPMORGAN CHASE: Charles Sues for Futures Contract Price-fixing--------------------------------------------------------------Robert Charles Class A, L.P. and Robert L. Teel, individually andon behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JPMorganChase & Co., John Edmonds, and John Does Nos. 1-10, Defendants,Case No. 1:18-cv-11115 (S.D. N.Y., November 28, 2018) is a classaction on behalf of all persons who traded precious metals futurescontracts, or options on those futures contracts, on the NYMEX orthe COMEX from approximately January 1, 2009 through December 31,2015, inclusive for Defendants' violations of the CommodityExchange Act and the common law.

This case arises from Defendants' manipulation of prices forprecious metals futures contracts through a scheme known as"spoofing". Spoofing is a practice in which traders artificiallymanipulate conditions – such as supply, demand, and price – byentering buy or sell orders that they do not intend tofollow-through on and then cancelling those orders. These deceptivebuy and sell orders inject materially false and misleadinginformation into markets and are intended to cause other investorsto trade on Defendants' genuine orders under conditions that aremore favorable to Defendants than would otherwise have occurred,says the complaint.

Plaintiff Robert Charles Class A, L.P. is a California LimitedPartnership, which, at all relevant times, maintained its principalplace of business in San Diego, California. RCA transacted in Goldand Silver Futures and options on NYMEX and COMEX during the ClassPeriod at artificial prices that were caused by Defendants'unlawful conduct, resulting in injury to its business or property.

Plaintiff Robert L. Teel is an individual who, at all relevanttimes, has been a resident of San Diego, California. Teeltransacted in Gold and Silver Futures and options on NYMEX andCOMEX during the Class Period at artificial prices that were causedby Defendants' unlawful conduct, resulting in injury to itsbusiness or property.

JPMorgan is an investment bank and financial services companyheadquartered in this District at 270 Park Avenue, New York, NewYork 10017. JPMorgan engages in a wide-variety of financialservices, including commodities trading.

Edmonds was employed by JPMorgan as a precious metal trader fromapproximately 2004 to August 2017.

Defendants John Does Nos. 1-10, inclusive, are other preciousmetals traders employed by Defendant JPMorgan that participated in,facilitated, and assisted with the manipulation, and unlawfulconduct.[BN]

JPMORGAN CHASE: Manipulates Precious Metal Futures Trade, Ryan Says-------------------------------------------------------------------KENNETH RYAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated, the Plaintiff, vs. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JOHN EDMONDS,and JOHN DOEs Nos. 1-20, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10755(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2018), alleges that Defendants harmed investorsby unlawfully manipulating the market for precious metal futurescontracts and options from approximately January 1, 2009, until atleast December 31, 2015, in violation of the Commodity Exchange Actand the New York's General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in along-running illicit scheme to "spoof" the market for futurescontracts -- contracts to enter into a future transaction at apredetermined price -- and options on future contracts for gold,silver, platinum, and palladium. Defendants placed orders to buyand sell precious metal futures, only to cancel the orders beforethey could be executed. On October 9, 2018, Edmonds, a trader atJPMorgan, pleaded guilty to commodities fraud and conspiracy tomanipulate the prices of precious metal futures. Edmonds admittedthat he "deployed this strategy hundreds of times with theknowledge and consent of his immediate supervisors." TheDefendants' deliberate, concealed acts distorted the market forprecious metal futures and futures options, causing prices to moveartificially to Defendants' benefit and to Plaintiff's and classmembers' detriment.

The Plaintiff traded in COMEX silver and gold futures at varioustimes during the period between January 1, 2009 and December 31,2015. The Plaintiff entered into transactions for gold and silverfutures at artificial prices that proximately resulted fromDefendants' misconduct. The Plaintiff consequently sufferedeconomic injury by purchasing or selling futures or options atprices that Defendants had caused to be artificially shifted, thelawsuit says.

JPMorgan Chase & Co. is a multinational financial services companyand investment bank incorporated under Delaware law andheadquartered at 270 Park Avenue, New York, New York. JPMorgan hasassets in excess of $2.5 trillion. It transacted in gold,palladium, platinum, and silver contracts on the New YorkMercantile Exchange and Commodity Exchange.[BN]

KANSAS: Sued over Deficiencies in Foster Care System----------------------------------------------------M.B. and S.E. through their next friend Katharyn McIntyre, V.A.through his next friend Kathryn Ashburn, J.M. through his nextfriend Ed Bigus, M.J. through his next friend Ed Bigus, R.M.through his next friend Allan Hazlett, C.A. through his next friendAllan Hazlett, Z.Z. through her next friend Ashley Thorne, B.B.through her next friend Ashley Thorne, and M.L. through her nextfriend Ashley Thorne, for themselves and those similarly situated,the Plaintiffs, vs. Jeff Colyer in his official capacity as KansasGovernor, Gina Meier-Hummel in her official capacity as KansasDepartment for Children and Families Secretary, Jeff Andersen inhis official capacity as Kansas Department of Health andEnvironment Secretary, and Tim Keck in his official capacity asKansas Department for Aging and Disability Services Secretary, theDefendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02617 (D. Kan., Nov. 16, 2018), seekssolely declarative and injunctive relief compelling Defendants to:

-- remedy known dangerous practices and specific structuraldeficiencies in the Kansas foster care system, and

-- end violations of Plaintiffs' federal rights under theFourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and under the Earlyand Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment provisions of thefederal Medicaid Act, and the resulting harms, and risks of harm,to foster children in the custody of the Kansas Department forChildren and Families (DCF).

In September 2018, the media reported the alleged rape of a13-year-old girl sleeping in a child welfare agency office inJohnson County, Kansas. The story of this child -- stayingovernight in an office because Kansas' broken system lacked anyhousing for her -- exemplified a long known danger. Kansas' childwelfare system is, and has been for at least a decade,systematically failing to protect the safety and well-being ofvulnerable children and youth in foster care in the DCF's custody. This action addresses two fundamental systemic failures creatingthis danger.

According to the lawsuit, the Defendants, which consist of stateofficials responsible for the operation of the statewide fostercare system in Kansas, maintain the dangerous practice ofsubjecting children in foster care to extreme housing disruption,also known as churning. Children in DCF custody needlessly movefrom placement to placement more than 15 or 20 times, and somechildren even move more than 50 or 100 times. Alarmingly, DCFfrequently subjects children to "night-to-night" or short-termplacements. In a repetitive, destabilizing cycle, children areregularly forced to sleep for a night or several nights anywhere abed, couch, office conference room, shelter or hospital can befound. For days, weeks, or even months at time, they spend theirnights in these short-term placements and their days in agencyoffices waiting to find out where they will sleep next, only torepeat the same cycle again. DCF's practice of extreme housingdisruption inherently deprives children of basic shelter andeffectively renders them homeless while in state custody.

According to DCF data, as of June 2018, there were 7,687 childrenin DCF custody. Between April and September of 2018 alone, 1,459 ofthe children in care were forced to sleep in one-night placements.This figure, while alarming, fails to fully capture the scope ofthe harm children in DCF custody face. It reflects neither childrenchurning through multiple night-to-nightplacements nor those housed in short-term transient placements forup to a week or a month at a time. The Named Plaintiff children inthis action have been moved anywhere from ten to over one hundredtimes while in DCF custody. Much of that churning has occurred injust the past one to two years. Given the fluid nature of thefoster care population, Defendants constantly expose differentchildren to extreme housing disruption, as a child with just one ortwo placements today can become the child with ten, twenty, or moreplacements in the near future.

The practice of churning in Kansas causes and presents a risk ofemotional, psychological, developmental and neurological harm.Research literature and studies show that churning causes andworsens both attachment and behavioral disorders. Researchliterature and studies also demonstrate that churning causes directphysical harm to children's normal brain development; a child'sbrain, central nervous system, and endocrine system are directlyharmed by the practice.

The lawsuit also contends that Defendants fail to provide childrenin DCF custody with mental health and behavioral health screening,diagnostic services, and treatment, including trauma-relatedscreening and diagnostic services. The failure to provide mentalhealth services mandated by the federal Medicaid statute causes,and risks causing, profound emotional and psychological harm tochildren in foster care. All children entering foster care inKansas have suffered the known trauma of removal from their homes,and thousands of children in DCF custody have identified mentalhealth needs and disorders at any given time. Yet, known shortages,delays, and waitlists for mental health services and treatment,including administrative barriers to prompt and sustained servicedelivery, continue to result in children being deprived of themental health care they require.

The fundamental problems of churning and mental health servicedelivery failures are deeply interconnected. In Kansas, churningoften delays or disrupts mental health screens, diagnosticservices, and treatment, and the trauma of churning itself causesharm and makes the need for prompt mental health services even moreurgent. This in turn contributes to more instability because fosterfamilies are frequently unable and unprepared to meet children'sunidentified and/or untreated mental health needs. For instance,while in foster care, ten-year-old Named Plaintiff C.A. has beenmoved among foster homes, group homes, and agency offices more thanseventy times. In 2018, he endured a three-month string ofcontinuous night-to-night placements. Treatment for C.A.'sattention deficit disorder (ADD) and post-traumatic stress disorder(PTSD), both diagnosed while C.A. has been in DCF custody, has beendisrupted in significant part because he has been moved around sooften. Similarly, seventeen-year-old Named Plaintiff M.L. wasdiagnosed with a mood disorder after being moved over forty timeswhile in DCF custody, bouncing among homes, facilities, offices andother night-to-night placements. Yet she has received inconsistentor negligible mental health treatment, in significant part becauseshe has been moved so frequently, the lawsuit says.[BN]

According to the complaint, some time prior to February 7, 2018, anobligation was allegedly incurred to Discover Bank. The DiscoverBank obligation arose out of transactions in which money, property,insurance or services, which are the subject of the transaction,are primarily for personal, family or household purposes.

The alleged Discover Bank obligation is a "debt" as defined by 15U.S.C. Discover Bank is a "creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C.section 1692a(4). Discover Bank or a subsequent owner of theDiscover Bank debt contracted the Defendant to collect the allegeddebt. The Defendant collects and attempts to collect debts incurredor alleged to have been incurred for personal, family or householdpurposes on behalf of creditors using the United States PostalServices, telephone and internet, the lawsuit says.

Kirschenbaum & Phillips, PC was founded in 1950. The company's lineof business includes providing full service legal advice.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Defendants assigned Plaintiff towork an average of 50 hours per week during Plaintiff's employment.The Plaintiff worked an average of nine hours per day six days perweek. The Plaintiff was compensated an average net-effective of$16.00 per day during all time periods of his employment regardlessof the number of hours Plaintiff actually worked. The Defendantsfailed to compensate Plaintiff at the federally mandated minimumwage rate of $7.25 per hour and likewise failed to compensatePlaintiff at the federally mandated overtime rate oftime-and-a-half his regular hourly rate for all hours worked over40 in any given workweek. The Defendants only paid Plaintiff anaverage of $93.00 per week instead of the $290.00 per weekDefendants should have paid Plaintiff for the first 40 hoursPlaintiff worked, the lawsuit says.

The Defendant is a car wash company that has been operating in theState of Florida since 1994.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Defendant provides interior designservices to consumers on a fixed price basis. The Defendant engagesin unsolicited telemarketing directed towards prospective customerswith no regard for consumers' privacy rights. The Defendant'stelemarketing consists of sending text messages to consumerssoliciting them to purchase Defendant's goods and services. TheDefendant caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sentto the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members, causingthem injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation,annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion, thelawsuit says.

Laurel & Wolf, Inc. provides online interior design and decoratingservices in the United States. The company was founded in 2014 andis headquartered in West Hollywood, California.[BN]

LeafFilter North, Inc. manufactures, sells, and installs gutterguards for homeowners in the United States. The company's gutterguards are installed on existing gutters. It also provides gutterguard support and installation services. LeafFilter North, Inc. wasfounded in 2005 and is based in Hudson, Ohio. [BN]

LEARJET INC: Wood et al. Sue over Adverse Employment Action-----------------------------------------------------------MARK WOOD AND DENNIS PARR, on behalf of themselves and all otherssimilarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. LEARJET, INC. andBOMBARDIER, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02621 (D. Kan.,Nov. 16, 2018), seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendant'sadverse employment action and was damaged as a result ofPlaintiff's termination from employment.

According to the complaint, there is a causal connection betweenPlaintiff Wood's exercise of protected activity and Defendants'willful, discriminatory, and unlawful retaliation resulting inWood's termination. This is a collective action initiated by twoformer Wichita-based aerospace engineers and other salaried,non-management employees, for themselves and others similarlysituated, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act againsttheir former joint employers, Learjet, Inc. and Bombardier Inc.,challenging their terminations from employment by defendants. ThePlaintiffs also assert individual ADEA termination claims, and Mr.Woods also asserts an individual retaliation claim. The Plaintiffsare age 40 or above, skilled, experienced aerospace engineers withsolid (or better) work records.

The Plaintiffs seek relief -- for themselves and numerous otherformer aerospace engineers age 40 and older terminated after theinstallation of new management for the BFTC engineering group in orabout February of 2015 -- from defendants' targeted terminationsthat disproportionately affected older employees, including them.The Plaintiffs contend that Defendants acted with the purpose andeffect of discriminating against them and other like them based onage so as to reduce the average age of the BFTC's engineeringworkforce. The Plaintiffs contend that they and similarly situatedformer Wichita-based aerospace engineers of Defendants age 40 andover were harmed by decisions, policies, practices and plansdeveloped and orchestrated at upper levels of Defendants'management beginning in 2015 as management embarked on a program toreduce the average age of the Bombardier Flight Test Center("BFTC")'s engineering workforce.

The discriminatory practices at issues in this matter coincidedwith the installation of new management for the BFTC engineeringgroup. In or about February of 2015, Tom Bisges became Bombardier'sVice President of Flight Test Engineering, assuming responsibilityfor all Bombardier flight test engineering and operations at theBFTC in Wichita. Mr. Andy Paterson, as Mr. Bisges' subordinate, wasBombardier's Director of Engineering at the BFTC. Both of theseindividuals were in the direct chain of command for the Plaintiffsand the other engineers at the BFTC discussed in thiscorrespondence, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to properly compensatePlaintiff and Members of the Class for work performed in the employof the Defendants. The Plaintiff and Members of the Class havesuffered damages as a direct result of Defendants' illegal actions,the lawsuit says.[BN]

LOGMEIN INC: Wasson Securities Suit Transferred to Massachusetts----------------------------------------------------------------BENJAMIN WASSON, Individually and On Behalf of All Others SimilarlySituated, the Plaintiff, vs. LOGMEIN, INC., WILLIAM R. WAGNER, andEDWARD K. HERDIECH, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-07285, wastransferred from the United States District Court for the CentralDistrict of California, to the United States District Court for theDistrict of Massachusetts (Boston) on Nov. 6, 2018. The District ofMassachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No.: 1:18-cv-12330-DLC. Thecase is assigned to the Hon. Judge Donald L. Cabell.

According to the complaint, the case is a federal securities classaction on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entitiesother than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired thepublicly traded securities of LogMeIn between March 1, 2017 andJuly 26, 2018, both dates inclusive. The Plaintiff seeks to recovercompensable damages caused by Defendants’ violations of thefederal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.[BN]

LYFT INC: Court Compels Arbitration in Peterson FCRA Suit---------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia, San Francisco Division, issued an Order grantingDefendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned PETEPETERSON, Plaintiff, v. LYFT, INC., Defendant. Case No.16-cv-07343-LB. (N.D. Cal.).

Lyft moves to compel arbitration of Mr. Peterson's FCRA claim basedon an arbitration provision contained in its Terms of Service.

Plaintiff Pete Peterson brings this putative class action againstthe ridesharing company Lyft, Inc. Lyft twice denied Mr. Peterson'sapplications to be a driver, based on a background consumer reportthat a screening company ran on Lyft's behalf on Mr. Peterson. Mr.Peterson alleges that Lyft violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act(FCRA), which provides that a person or entity using a consumerreport for employment purposes must provide the subject withcertain information a copy of the report and a written descriptionof the subject's rights under the FCRA before it can take anyadverse action based on the report.

The parties dispute two issues: (1) whether Mr. Peterson's FCRAclaim is arbitrable (as defined in the arbitration provision in theTerms of Service) and (2) whether the arbitration provision isunconscionable.

The parties' arbitration provision here expressly provides thatlegal disputes or claims arising out of the Agreement including butnot limited to the arbitrability of any dispute, shall be submittedto binding arbitration. As another court in this district has heldin connection with this same Lyft Terms-of-Service arbitrationprovision, this language explicitly referring arbitrabilityquestions to an arbitrator is evidence that the parties clearly andunmistakably have referred the arbitrability question to thearbitrator.

Mr. Peterson argues that parties cannot delegate questions ofarbitrability to an arbitrator by incorporating into theiragreement by reference the American Arbitration Association's (AAA)arbitration rules. But the parties did not delegate questions ofarbitrability to an arbitrator by incorporating the AAA rules.Instead, the parties' contract expressly delegates questions of thearbitrability of any dispute to the arbitrator. Mr. Peterson'scases which involve arbitration provisions that did not expresslydelegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator and insteadrelied on provisions in AAA rules about delegation are inapposite.

Mr. Peterson also claims that the parties' contract is unclear asto whether the AAA Commercial Rules or Consumer Rules would applyand argues that this defeats Lyft's argument that the partiesagreed to delegate questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator.Mr. Peterson cites no authority to support his argument,25 andcourts have rejected it.

The only thing Mr. Peterson offers regarding proceduralunconscionability is an argument that the arbitration provision isa contract of adhesion. At best, this presents a minimal level ofprocedural unconscionability. Consequently, the arbitrationagreement will be enforceable unless the degree of substantiveunconscionability is high.

Mr. Peterson first argues that the arbitration provision issubstantively unconscionable because it provides for delegation ofthe question of arbitrability under the AAA Commercial Rules when,so he argues, Lyft itself believes the AAA Consumer Rules shouldapply. This overly simplifies Lyft's argument. Lyft argues that theapplicable AAA Commercial Rules themselves provide that disputesarising out of a consumer arbitration agreement may be administeredunder the AAA Consumer Rules.29 In any event, Mr. Peterson cites noauthorities that support his argument or satisfy his burden ofestablishing unconscionability.

Mr. Peterson next argues that the arbitration provision issubstantively unconscionable because Lyft can unilaterally modifyit. Mr. Peterson cites no authorities that support his argument.The Ninth Circuit has held that a unilateral modification clausedoes not per se make an arbitration provision unconscionable,because "California courts have held that the implied covenant ofgood faith and fair dealing prevents a party from exercising itsrights under a unilateral modification clause in a way that wouldmake it unconscionable..

Third, Mr. Peterson argues that AAA rules contain a privacyprovision that is unconscionable, citing Ting v. AT&T, 319 F.3d1126 (9th Cir. 2003). As the Ninth Circuit has held, subsequentCalifornia state-court decisions have undermined the holding inTing. Under current California and Ninth Circuit law, privacyprovisions like the one at issue do not render the arbitrationprovision unconscionable.

The court finds that (1) the parties entered into a bindingagreement that contains an arbitration provision, (2) the partiesin their arbitration provision delegated questions about thearbitrability of disputes such as whether Mr. Peterson's FCRA claimfalls within the scope of the arbitration provision to thearbitrator, and (3) the arbitration provision is enforceable andnot unconscionable.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 19, 2018 Order isavailable at https://tinyurl.com/yd6togbo from Leagle.com.

MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: California Securities Suit Underway--------------------------------------------------------MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13,2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that theCompany continues to defend against the consolidated complaintentitled, In re MabVax Therapeutics Securities Litigation, Case No.18-cv-1160-BAS-NLS.

On June 4, 2018, and August 3, 2018, two securities class actioncomplaints were filed by purported stockholders of the Company inthe United States District Court for the Southern District ofCalifornia (the "U.S. District Court") against the Company andcertain of its current officers.

On September 6, 2018, the U.S. District Court consolidated the twoactions and appointed lead plaintiffs. On October 10, 2018, leadplaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint, which, in additionto naming the Company and certain current officers as defendants,also names certain investors as defendants.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that thedefendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by misleading investors about problemswith the Company's internal controls, improper calculation of itsbeneficial ownership, and improper influence by certain investors.

The consolidated complaint also alleges that some of the investordefendants violated Section 9 of the Exchange Act by manipulatingthe Company's stock price. The consolidated complaint seeksunspecified damages, interest, fees and costs.

The deadline to respond to the consolidated complaint was December6, 2018.

MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc., a clinical stagebiopharmaceutical company, discovers, develops, and commercializesproprietary human monoclonal antibody products and vaccines for thetreatment of various cancers. MabVax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc.was founded in 2006 and is based in San Diego, California.

The Defendants operate a structural steel fabrication and erectioncompany specializing in residential and commercial structural steelprojects. Jonathan Hughes was employed by Defendants as a welder.Mr. Hughes was improperly classified as an independent contractor.Mr. Hughes was paid on an hourly basis and would often work morethan 40 in a week. In fact, Mr. Hughes would oftentimes work 55-60hours per week. The Defendants paid Mr. Hughes straight time forall hours worked, the lawsuit says.[BN]

MALLINCKRODT PLC: City of Rockford Class Action Ongoing-------------------------------------------------------Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,2018, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2018, that thecompany continues to defend itself from a putative class actionsuit entitled, City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.

On April 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed againstthe Company and United Biosource Corporation (UBC) in the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case iscaptioned City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.

The complaint was subsequently amended, most recently on December8, 2017, to include an additional named plaintiff and additionaldefendants. As amended, the complaint purports to be brought onbehalf of all self-funded entities in the U.S. and its Territories,excluding any Medicare Advantage Organizations, related entitiesand certain others, that paid for H.P. Acthar Gel from August 2007to the present.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company engaged in anticompetitive,unfair, and deceptive acts to artificially raise and maintain theprice of H.P. Acthar Gel. To this end, the suit alleges that theCompany unlawfully maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTHproduct market by acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen Depot;conspired with UBC and violated anti-racketeering laws by sellingH.P. Acthar Gel through an exclusive distributor; and committedfraud on consumers by failing to correctly identify H.P. ActharGel's active ingredient on package inserts.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Mallinckrodt public limited company develops, manufactures,markets, and distributes branded pharmaceutical products in Canadaand the European Union, as well as in Latin American, the MiddleEastern, African, and the Asia-Pacific regions. The company marketsbranded pharmaceutical products for autoimmune and rare diseases inthe specialty areas of neurology, rheumatology, nephrology,ophthalmology, and pulmonology; and immunotherapy and neonatalrespiratory critical care therapies, as well as analgesics andgastrointestinal products. The company is based inStaines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom.

MALLINCKRODT PLC: Continues to Defend MSP Recovery Class Suit-------------------------------------------------------------Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,2018, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2018, that thecompany continues to defend against a putative class action suitentitled, MSP Recovery Claims, Series II LLC, et al. v.Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.

On October 30, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filedagainst the Company and United BioSource Corporation ("UBC") in theU.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Thecase is captioned MSP Recovery Claims, Series II LLC, et al. v.Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al.

The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of two classes: allMedicare Advantage Organizations and related entities in the U.S.who purchased or provided reimbursement for H.P. Acthar Gelpursuant to (i) Medicare Part C contracts (Class 1) and (ii)Medicare Part D contracts (Class 2) since January 1, 2011, withcertain exclusions.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in anticompetitive,unfair, and deceptive acts to artificially raise and maintain theprice of H.P. Acthar Gel. To this end, the complaint alleges thatthe Company unlawfully maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTHproduct market by acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen Depot andreaching anti-competitive agreements with the other defendants byselling H.P. Acthar Gel through an exclusive distribution network.

The complaint purports to allege claims under federal and stateantitrust laws and state unfair competition and unfair tradepractice laws. Pursuant to a motion filed by defendants, this casehas been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Illinois.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Mallinckrodt public limited company develops, manufactures,markets, and distributes branded pharmaceutical products in Canadaand the European Union, as well as in Latin American, the MiddleEastern, African, and the Asia-Pacific regions. The company marketsbranded pharmaceutical products for autoimmune and rare diseases inthe specialty areas of neurology, rheumatology, nephrology,ophthalmology, and pulmonology; and immunotherapy and neonatalrespiratory critical care therapies, as well as analgesics andgastrointestinal products. The company is based inStaines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom.

MALLINCKRODT PLC: Employee Stock Purchase Plan Suit Remains Stayed------------------------------------------------------------------Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6,2018, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2018, thatpursuant to the parties agreement, the Employee Stock Purchase PlanSecurities Litigation is still stayed pending the resolution of thePatricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. suit.

On July 20, 2017, a purported purchaser of Mallinckrodt stockthrough Mallinckrodt's Employee Stock Purchase Plans ("ESPPs"),filed a derivative lawsuit in the Federal District Court in theEastern District of Missouri, captioned Solomon v. Mallinckrodtplc, et al., against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer MarkC. Trudeau ("CEO"), its Chief Financial Officer Matthew K. Harbaugh("CFO"), its Controller Kathleen A. Schaefer, and current andformer directors of the Company.

On September 6, 2017, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaintin the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouriand refiled virtually the same complaint in the U.S. District Courtfor the District of Columbia. The complaint purports to be broughton behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquiredMallinckrodt stock between November 25, 2014, and January 18, 2017,through the ESPPs.

In the alternative, the plaintiff alleges a class action for thosesame purchasers/acquirers of stock in the ESPPs during the sameperiod. The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of theSecurities Act, and for breach of fiduciary duty,misrepresentation, non-disclosure, mismanagement of the ESPPs'assets and breach of contract arising from substantially similarallegations as those contained in the putative class actionsecurities litigation described in the following paragraph.Stipulated co-lead plaintiffs were approved by the court on March1, 2018.

Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2018having a class period of July 14, 2014 to November 6, 2017.

On July 6, 2018, the matter was stayed by agreement of the partiespending resolution of the Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, etal.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Mallinckrodt public limited company develops, manufactures,markets, and distributes branded pharmaceutical products in Canadaand the European Union, as well as in Latin American, the MiddleEastern, African, and the Asia-Pacific regions. The company marketsbranded pharmaceutical products for autoimmune and rare diseases inthe specialty areas of neurology, rheumatology, nephrology,ophthalmology, and pulmonology; and immunotherapy and neonatalrespiratory critical care therapies, as well as analgesics andgastrointestinal products. The company is based inStaines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom.

According to the complaint, the Liberty Hotel is a 298-roomfive-star hotel that opened in 2007 at the site of the formerCharles Street Jail. It is promoted by the Defendant as a part ofwhat it markets as its exclusive "Luxury Collection" of hotels. Atall times relevant from the time of its acquisition, the Defendanthas promoted the attributes of The Liberty Hotel to the publicthrough its website and other means targeted to reach a discerningcustomer base willing to pay premium prices for high-end, luxuryaccommodations.

The Plaintiff stayed at the Liberty Hotel on February 18, 2018,after having booked his reservation on the Liberty's website. The"Deluxe" room which the plaintiff selected, based upon therepresentations made on its website was described as containing 400square feet. The represented size of his room was expresslyaffirmed on Liberty's confirmation of the reservation. Room size isa material consideration in the pricing of rooms and the deliveryof value in the luxury experience sought by guests at five-starhotels like the Liberty, the lawsuit says.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendantscontinuously, through October 19, 2018. The Plaintiff was assignedto various work sites staffed by the corporate defendant, MarteConstruction, Inc. During Ignacio Reyes de los Santos' employmentby Defendants, he worked over 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffgenerally worked 60 hours per week.

The Plaintiff was not paid overtime wages at anytime during hisemployment. The Plaintiff was paid "daily rate" of $120.00 to$140.00. He was paid by check; he normally worked six days perweek; he worked 10 hours per day. The Plaintiff was always paid atthe same regular rate of pay ("straight time"), for all hoursworked, every week, the lawsuit says.

Marte Construction is a full service remodeling, renovation andrepair company.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarlysituated persons are presently or were formerly employed byDefendants' restaurant and catering venues located in New York,including but not limited to the facilities commonly known as DaMikele Illagio and Da Mikelle.

The Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of failing todistribute the proceeds collected from the assessment of themandatory charge to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees andinstead retained the money for their own benefit in violation ofLabor Law Article 6 section 196-d. Moreover, throughout theRelevant Period, Defendants have engaged in a policy and practiceof unlawfully compensating its service employees an hourly ratelower than the applicable minimum wage. Furthermore, throughout theRelevant Period, Defendants have engaged in a policy and practiceof taking allowances from service employees' pay, without providingthe employees with notice of such in accordance with applicablelaw, the lawsuit says.[BN]

MASONITE CORP: Sued over Price Fixing of Interior Molded Doors--------------------------------------------------------------LEN-CO LUMBER CORP., individually and on behalf of all thosesimilarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. MASONITE CORPORATION andJELD-WEN, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00798 (E.D. Va.,Nov. 15, 2018), seeks to recover damages, costs of suit, injunctiverelief and other relief as may be just and proper from Defedantsunder the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, for their conspiracy toviolate federal antitrust laws by fixing, raising and/ormaintaining the prices of interior molded doors in the UnitedStates.

According to the complaint, the interior molded door is the mostpopular type of interior door in North America. Molded doorskinsconstitute the largest input cost of an interior molded door,comprising up to 70% of the cost of manufacturing a molded door.The Defendants and Jeld-Wen are vertically-integratedmanufacturers, i.e., they manufacture both molded doorskins as wellas interior molded doors. Defendants control the majority (around85%) of the market for interior molded doors and are the onlymanufacturers for doorskins, a necessary input for interior moldeddoors, in North America. Being the only two vertically-integratedinterior molded door manufacturers in the U.S., Jeld-Wen andMasonite have significant power in both product markets.

Historically, the market contained at least one significantnon-integrated manufacturer of doorskins, Masonite, at least onesignificant non-integrated manufacturer of interior molded doors,Premdor, Inc., and numerous other non-integrated interior moldeddoor manufacturers. Recognizing there was a strong incentive bydoor manufacturers to collude to increase the price of interiormolded doors, the Department of Justice in 2001 permitted Premdor,Inc. to acquire Masonite (and form a newly-integrated manufacturerof both doorskins and interior molded doors) only on the conditionthat Premdor/Masonite divest a doorskin manufacturing plant inTowanda, Pennsylvania to a new entity called CraftMaster, Inc.("CMI").

In 2012, however, Defendant Jeld-Wen acquired CMI, therebyeliminating the check on competition established by the DOJ'srequired divestiture. Between 2001 and 2012, both Jeld-Wen andMasonite also eliminated competition by acquiring a number ofsmaller interior door manufacturers. Additionally, the Defendantshave jointly sought to eliminate competition by stopping theirlongstanding practice of supplying doorskins to smaller interiordoor manufacturers. In furtherance of the conspiracy, Masoniteannounced in 2014 it would no longer sell doorskins to other doormanufacturers. This unprecedented shift in business practice wasplainly against Masonite's own economic interests, as it handedover that entire market to Jeld-Wen. Worse, it did so at a timewhen Jeld-Wen's doorskins were of poor quality.

Defendants' price increases cannot rationally be explained bynormal market forces, such as key input costs, and supply anddemand factors. Key input costs for raw materials, such as wood,resin, wax, oil, sealer, paint, and packaging, and for energy, suchas electric power prices, natural gas prices, and boiler fueldecreased while Defendants increased their prices. Masoniteemployees analyzed data and ran pricing scenarios based on marketfactors, such as the price of raw materials, transportation costs,and expected demand, and were often surprised to learn that theBoard and the company’s top executives intended to impose priceincreases that were substantially in excess of what they believedthe market would accept, the lawsuit says.[BN]

Counsel for Plaintiff Len-Co Lumber Corp. and the ProposedSub-Classes:

Plaintiff and the Class Members routinely worked far in excess of40 hours per week for Defendants, routinely between 60 and 70 hoursper week, and were not paid the appropriate or lawful overtime rateunder the NJWHL when they worked over 40 hours per week.

The Defendants' ongoing illegal policy of failing to pay Plaintiffand the Class Members for time worked has resulted in Plaintiff andthe Class Members being denied substantial legally requiredcompensation and/or overtime payments given that the Plaintiff andthe Class Members routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week,says the complaint.

Plaintiff Vanessa Sancho has resided in the City of Trenton in theCounty of Mercer in the State of New Jersey at all times relevantto this matter and was employed by Defendants from approximatelyMarch 04, 2018 through May 22, 2018.

Defendant Medford Nursery, Inc. is a foreign, for profitcorporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State ofConnecticut, with its principal place of business located at 560-AEayrestown-Red Lion Road, in the Township of Medford in the Countyof Burlington and the State of New Jersey. It is in the business ofcultivating and growing container nursery stock (i.e. plants) andselling its product wholesale and not to the general public. It isa division of Robert Baker, Inc.

Defendant Robert Baker, Inc. is a foreign, for-profit corporation,organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut,with its principal place of business located at 1700 Mountain Road,in the Town of West Suffield in the County of Hartford and theState of Connecticut.

ABC CORPS. 1-10 and/or JANE and JOHN DOES 1-10, designated byfictitious names, are business entities and/or individuals who mayor may not also be liable to Plaintiffs and the other similarlysituated employees in this matter.[BN]

MEDICAL NECESSITIES: Jenkins-Queen Seeks Overtime Pay-----------------------------------------------------CHARLES JENKINS-QUEEN, Individually and on behalf of all othersimilarly situated current and former employees, the Plaintiff, vs.MEDICAL NECESSITIES AND SERVICES, LLC, a Tennessee Corporation, theDefendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01294 (M.D. Tenn, Nov. 16, 2018),alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act inthat it failed to pay Plaintiff for all hours he worked by notcompensating him at the rate of time and one-half his regular rateof pay for all the hours worked over 40 hours in one workweek.

According to the complaint, Mr. Jenkins-Queen worked for MedicalNecessities on an hourly-paid basis during the last three years asa delivery technician. He was responsible for the delivery,installation, removal, and troubleshooting or repair of MedicalNecessities in-home medical equipment. As part of their regularschedule, Mr. Jenkins-Queen and other Delivery Techs typicallyworked more than 40 hours per week. Medical Necessities never paidMr. Jenkins-Queen for the time spent driving to his firstappointment or from his last appointment, even if he was "on call,"and/or driving far beyond his normal territory, the lawsuit says.

Medical Necessities is a healthcare company specializing inrespiratory supplies, mobility aids, and home medicalequipment.[BN]

METRO CHRYSLER: Brutus Suit Moved to Queens County State Court--------------------------------------------------------------JEAN INES BRUTUS, individually and on behalf of other personssimilarly situated, the Plaintiffs, vs. METRO CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH,INC. d/b/a STAR CHRYSLER JEEP DODGE RAM and/or any other entitiesaffiliated with or controlled by METRO CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH, INC., theDefendants, Case No. 716959/2018, was removed from New York SupremeCourt, Queens County, to the New York Supreme Court, New YorkCounty on Nov. 8, 2018, the New York County Court Clerk assignedCase No. to the proceeding 153047/2018. The case is assigned to theHon. Judge Andrew Borrok.

The action is brought by Plaintiff and on behalf of a putativeclass of individuals who are presently or were formerly employed byDefendant from April 2012 to the present as sales representatives.The Plaintiffs sought to recover wages which Plaintiffs werecontractually and statutorily entitled to receive pursuant to NewYork Labor Law.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Defednants knowingly and willfullyfailed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees thelawfully earned overtime rate for all hours worked over 40 in awork week in contravention of the FLSA and NYLL, the lawsuitsays.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendantswithin the past three years. While the Defendants generally paidovertime, they did not pay Plaintiff and similarly situatedemployees proper overtime wages of one and one-half time theirregular rate of pay for all hours worked above forty hours in awork week by not properly including all compensation and hoursworked.

The Defendants did not capture all compensation paid to Plaintiffand similarly situated employees when calculating their regularrates for overtime purposes. For instance, Defendants attempted tohide compensation in the form of "Mileage" so as to minimize theovertime premiums that had to be paid to Plaintiff and similarlysituated employees, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that the district court did notapply the correct standard of review to the Magistrate Judge'sruling, and also that the motion to quash should have been deniedon the merits.

Plaintiffs Richard Jordan and Ricky Chase -- Mississippi death rowinmates -- served the Georgia Department of Corrections (GDC) witha subpoena directing the GDC to testify at a Rule 30(b)(6)deposition and to produce documents concerning Georgia's lethalinjection protocol. Plaintiffs argued that the testimony anddocuments were necessary to support their 42 U.S.C. Section 1983claims pending in the Southern District of Mississippi challengingthe legality of Mississippi's lethal injection protocol.

The GDC filed a motion to quash in the Northern District ofGeorgia, where compliance with the subpoena was required. Accepting the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge, the districtcourt granted the motion to quash.

The Plaintiffs appeal, arguing that (1) the district court appliedthe wrong standard of review to the Magistrate Judge's ruling and(2) the motion to quash should have been denied on the merits.

The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court applied thecorrect standard of review to the Magistrate Judge's ruling on themotion to quash.

The standard of review the district court was required to applydepends on whether the Court characterizes the GDC's motion toquash as a dispositive or a non-dispositive matter. Under theFederal Magistrate's Act, a district court may designate amagistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pendingbefore the court. If the matter is non-dispositive, the districtcourt reviews the magistrate judge's ruling under the clearlyerroneous or contrary to law standard. But if the matter isdispositive, the district court must review any objected-to portionof the magistrate judge's ruling de novo.

The Plaintiffs do not dispute that if the GDC's motion to quash hadbeen filed in the Southern District of Mississippi, where theunderlying Section 1983 action is pending, the motion would beconsidered non-dispositive and a magistrate judge's ruling on itwould be reviewed under the clearly erroneous or contrary to lawstandard. Yet, Plaintiffs argue that the Magistrate Judge's rulingon the motion to quash filed in this particular case should beconsidered dispositive—and thus reviewed under the de novostandard because it resolves and finally disposes of the litigationbetween Plaintiffs and the GDC that is pending in the NorthernDistrict of Georgia.

The Court is not persuaded by this argument. The GDC's motion toquash required separate litigation between Plaintiffs and the GDCin the Northern District of Georgia because the place forcompliance with the subpoena, and thus the proper venue for filinga motion to quash, was in the Northern District of Georgia. And theMagistrate Judge's ruling on the motion resulted in a finaldisposition of the issues raised in the motion, permittingPlaintiffs to appeal the ruling to this Court. But that does notchange the essential nature of the motion to quash from a routinepretrial discovery motion, which is ancillary to the Section 1983litigation pending in the Southern District of Mississippi, to adispositive matter.

The Court finds no reason to treat the Magistrate Judge's ruling onthe GDC's motion to quash any differently than we would treat asimilar pretrial discovery motion that was filed in the SouthernDistrict of Mississippi, where the underlying Section 1983 actionis pending. As such, the Court conclude that the district courtcorrectly applied the clearly erroneous or contrary to law standardof review to the Magistrate Judge's ruling on the motion to quash.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by accepting andadopting the Magistrate Judge's ruling and granting the GDC'smotion to quash.

Having concluded that the district court applied the correctstandard of review, the only question for this Court is whether thedistrict court otherwise abused its discretion either by relying onan error of law or committing a clear error of judgment inaffirming the Magistrate Judge's ruling granting the GDC's motionto quash.

The Magistrate Judge concluded that disclosure of the informationsought in the GDC subpoena was precluded by Georgia's LethalInjection Secrecy Act. The Lethal Injection Secrecy Act statesthat: "The identifying information of any person or entity whoparticipates in or administers the execution of a death sentenceand the identifying information of any person or entity thatmanufactures, supplies, compounds, or prescribes the drugs, medicalsupplies, or medical equipment utilized in the execution of a deathsentence shall be confidential and shall not be subject todisclosure under judicial process."

The Act defines identifying information to include any records orinformation that reveals a name, residential or business address,residential or business telephone number, day and month of birth,social security number, or professional qualifications of a personor entity that manufactures, supplies or compounds lethal injectiondrugs.

By its plain terms, the Lethal Injection Secrecy Act barsdisclosure of the vast majority of information sought in thesubpoena Plaintiffs served on the GDC. For example, the subpoenademands that the GDC produce documents concerning: (1) the GDC'sattempt to secure or purchase pentobarbital for use in executions,(2) drug labels and package inserts for any drug purchased by theGDC for use in lethal injection executions, (3) the process bywhich the GDC decided to use a single lethal dose of barbiturate inits lethal injection protocol, including communications between anyGDC officer and any other person, corporation, or entity related tothat process, (4) the GDC's use of compounded pentobarbital inexecutions, including communications between the GDC and any otherperson or entity (including pharmaceutical companies, pharmacies,and other corrections departments) related to the compounding ofpentobarbital, (5) any GDC employee trainings on conducting lethalinjections, including the names and qualifications of the personwho taught at the training, and (6) communications between the GDCand any other corrections department or attorney general's officerelated to the selection, purchase, or exchange of drugs for use inlethal injections.

Responding to any of these demands would require disclosure of theidentity of people and entities that manufacture or supply drugsused in Georgia executions, and that otherwise participate inGeorgia executions, in violation of the Lethal Injection SecrecyAct as interpreted by this Court in the numerous cases citedabove.

The Plaintiffs argue that their case is distinguishable from thisCourt's precedent applying the Lethal Injection Secrecy Act becausenone of the Court's prior cases involved a condemned inmate'sattempt to secure information via subpoena. In our view, thisdistinction is immaterial. The essential principle underlying thisCourt's precedent is that the Lethal Injection Secrecy Act is alegitimate and constitutional attempt by the state of Georgia tomaintain the confidentiality of the people and entities includingdrug manufacturers and suppliers that participate in executions inGeorgia. In spite of the slightly different context in which thiscase arises, that principle applies with equal force here.

The Plaintiffs also argue that the GDC subpoena included someinformation that was not covered by the Lethal Injection SecrecyAct, and that the district court thus abused its discretion byordering the subpoena to be quashed in its entirety. According toPlaintiffs, the district court should at the very least haverequired the GDC to submit a privilege log.

Again, the Eleventh Circuit is unpersuaded. The purpose ofrequiring a privilege log is to enable the parties to assess aclaim of privilege.

Here, it is apparent from the face of the subpoena that the vastmajority of the information sought in the subpoena falls within theplain language of the Lethal Injection Secrecy Act. Moreimportantly, the information with the most relevance to Plaintiffs'Section 1983 claims that is, information identifying Georgia'ssource of pentobarbital, which could show that pentobarbital is aknown and available alternative to Mississippi's three-drugprotocol.

Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by quashingthe subpoena in its entirety, and without first requiring the GDCto submit a privilege log.

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's November 19, 2018Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycmdvj6k fromLeagle.com.

William A. Morrison, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Joseph J. Drolet, for Movant-Appellee.

Tina Michelle Piper, for Movant-Appellee.

Rebecca J. Dobras, for Movant-Appellee.

Amir H. Ali, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

James W. Craig, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Emily M. Washington, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

MOBILE COUNTY, AL: Yates et al. Seek to Certify Class-----------------------------------------------------In the class action lawsuit captioned ANITRA DIAMOND and LEBARRONYATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,the Plaintiffs, v. KIMBERLY HASTIE, in her individual and officialcapacity as the Mobile County License Commissioner and a MobileCounty employee, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00204-KD-C (S.D.Ala), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying a classof:

"all persons who had email addresses in the custody of the Mobile County License Commission which were disclosed by defendant Kimberly Hastie to Chad Tucker and Strateco, LLC."

Excluded from the class are: defendant Hastie and her immediatefamily; all persons who make a timely election to be excluded fromthe class; the judges to whom this case is assigned and immediatefamily members.

The proposed class includes over 30,000 individuals as defendantHastie unlawfully obtained, used, and disclosed the names and emailaddresses of Mobile County drivers on file with the LicenseCommission.

MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Tennessee Suit Pending--------------------------------------------------------------Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that thecompany's motions to dismiss in the class action suit initiated byhe Hospital Authority of Metropolitan Government of Nashville andDavidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a Nashville General Hospital, isstill pending.

On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of MetropolitanGovernment of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/aNashville General Hospital, or NGH, filed a class action suitagainst the Company and Sandoz in the United States District Courtfor the Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certainpurchasers of LOVENOX or generic Enoxaparin Sodium Injection.

In December 2015, the Company and Sandoz filed a motion to dismissand a motion to transfer the case to the United States DistrictCourt for the District of Massachusetts. On March 21, 2017, theUnited States District Court for the Middle District of Tennesseedismissed NGH's claim for damages against the Company and Sandoz,but allowed the case to move forward, in part, for NGH's claims forinjunctive and declaratory relief. In the same opinion, the UnitedStates District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee deniedthe Company's motion to transfer.

On June 9, 2017, NGH filed a motion to amend its complaint to add anew named plaintiff, the American Federation of State, County andMunicipal Employees District Council 37 Health & Security Plan, orDC37. NGH and DC37 seek to assert claims for damages under the lawsof more than 30 different states, on behalf of a putative class ofindirect purchasers of Lovenox or generic enoxaparin. On June 30,2017, the Company and Sandoz filed a brief opposing the motion toamend the complaint. On December 14, 2017, the Court granted NGH'smotion to amend.

In January 2018, the Company and Sandoz filed three motions todismiss the amended complaint. Those briefs remain pending beforethe Court.

Momenta Pharmaceuticals said, "While the outcome of litigation isinherently uncertain, the Company believes this suit is withoutmerit, and intends to vigorously defend itself in thislitigation."

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biotechnology company, focuses ondeveloping generic versions of complex drugs, biosimilars, andnovel therapeutics for autoimmune diseases in the United States.The company was formerly known as Mimeon, Inc. and changed its nameto Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in September 2002. MomentaPharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered inCambridge, Massachusetts.

MONRO MUFFLER: Naszkiewicz Suit Moved to District of Florida------------------------------------------------------------Scott Naszkiewicz, Individually and on behalf of others similarlysituated, the Plaintiff, vs. Monro Muffler Brake, Inc. d/b/a TheTire Choice& Total Car Care, the Defendants, Case No. 18-CA-010091,was removed from the Florida 13th Circuit Court for HillsboroughCounty, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District ofFlorida on Nov. 7, 2018. The Florida Middle District Court Clerkassigned Case No. 8:18-cv-02743-CEH-CPT to the proceeding. The caseis assigned to the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell. The suitalleges Fair Labor Standards Act violation.[BN]

MYLAN NV: Israeli Securities Suit Still Stayed----------------------------------------------Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2018, that the IEC Fund Action in theTel Aviv District Court (Economic Division) remains stayed until ajudgment is issued in the securities litigation pending in theUnited States.

On October 13, 2016, a purported shareholder of Mylan N.V. filed alawsuit, together with a motion to certify the lawsuit as a classaction on behalf of certain Mylan N.V. shareholders on the Tel AvivStock Exchange, against Mylan N.V. and four of its directors andofficers (collectively, for purposes of this paragraph, the"defendants") in the Tel Aviv District Court (Economic Division)(the "Friedman Action").

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants made false or misleadingstatements and omissions of purportedly material fact in MylanN.V.'s reports to the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange regarding MylanN.V.'s classification of its EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector for purposesof the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program (MDRP), in violation of bothU.S. and Israeli securities laws, the Israeli Companies Law and theIsraeli Torts Ordinance. The plaintiff seeks damages, among otherremedies.

On April 30, 2017, another purported shareholder of Mylan N.V.filed a separate lawsuit, together with a motion to certify thelawsuit as a class action on behalf of certain Mylan N.V.shareholders on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange, in the Tel AvivDistrict Court (Economic Division), alleging substantially similarclaims and seeking substantially similar relief against thedefendants and other directors and officers of Mylan N.V., butalleging also that this group of defendants made false ormisleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact inconnection with allegedly anticompetitive conduct with respect toEpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and certain generic drugs, and allegingviolations of both U.S. federal securities laws and Israeli law(the "IEC Fund Action").

On April 10, 2018, the Tel Aviv District Court granted the motionfiled by plaintiffs in both the Friedman Action and the IEC FundAction, voluntarily dismissing the Friedman Action and staying theIEC Fund Action until a judgment is issued in the securitieslitigation pending in the United States.

Mylan said, "We believe that the claims in these lawsuits arewithout merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, brand name, andover-the-counter (OTC) products worldwide. The company operatesthrough three segments: North America, Europe, and Rest of World.It offers pharmaceutical products in tablet, capsule, injectable,transdermal patch, gel, nebulized, and cream or ointment forms. Thecompany was formerly known as New Moon B.V. Mylan N.V. was foundedin 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.

MYLAN NV: Trial in EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector Suit in July 2020------------------------------------------------------------Mylan N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2018, that the trial date in theEpiPen(R) Auto-Injector-related suit has been scheduled for July2020.

Mylan Specialty and other Mylan-affiliated entities have been namedas defendants in putative class actions relating to the pricingand/or marketing of the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector. The plaintiffs inthese cases assert violations of various federal and stateantitrust and consumer protection laws, the Racketeer Influencedand Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as common law claims.

Plaintiffs' claims include purported challenges to the pricescharged for the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and/or the marketing of theproduct in packages containing two auto-injectors, as well asallegedly anti-competitive conduct. A Mylan officer and othernon-Mylan affiliated companies were also named as defendants insome of the class actions.

These lawsuits were filed in the various federal and state courtsand have either been dismissed or transferred into a multidistrictlitigation ("MDL") in the U.S. District Court for the District ofKansas and have been consolidated. Mylan filed a motion to dismissthe consolidated amended complaint, which was granted in part anddenied in part. A trial date has been scheduled for July 2020.

Mylan said, "We believe that the remaining claims in these lawsuitsare without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, brand name, andover-the-counter (OTC) products worldwide. The company operatesthrough three segments: North America, Europe, and Rest of World.It offers pharmaceutical products in tablet, capsule, injectable,transdermal patch, gel, nebulized, and cream or ointment forms. Thecompany was formerly known as New Moon B.V. Mylan N.V. was foundedin 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.

NANTKWEST INC: Settlement in Principle Reached in Sudunagunta Suit------------------------------------------------------------------NantKwest, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the parties inSudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc., et al., have notified the districtcourt that they have reached a settlement in principle.

In March 2016, a putative securities class action complaintcaptioned Sudunagunta v. NantKwest, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-01947was filed in federal district court for the Central District ofCalifornia related to the Company's restatement of certain interimfinancial statements for the periods ended June 30, 2015 andSeptember 30, 2015. A number of similar putative class actions werefiled in federal and state court in California.

The actions originally filed in state court were removed to federalcourt, and the various related actions have been consolidated.Plaintiffs assert causes of action for alleged violations ofSections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b)and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, costsand attorneys' fees, and equitable/injunctive or other relief onbehalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or acquired theCompany's securities during various time periods from July 28, 2015through March 11, 2016.

In September 2017, the court denied defendants' motion to dismissthe third amended consolidated complaint. On August 13, 2018, thedistrict court granted plaintiffs' motions for class certificationand to strike plaintiffs' claims under the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and Rule 10b-5. On August 24, 2018, at the district court'sdirection, plaintiffs filed a fourth amended consolidatedcomplaint.

On August 27, 2018, defendants petitioned the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Ninth Circuit to authorize interlocutory appeal of theclass certification order. On September 7, 2018, defendantsanswered the fourth amended consolidated complaint. On September21, 2018, the parties informed the Ninth Circuit that they havereached a settlement in principle, and the parties moved to stayappellate proceedings.

On September 24, 2018, the parties notified the district court thatthey have reached a settlement in principle and that, after thesettlement is documented, lead plaintiffs will move for preliminaryapproval.

Under the terms of the settlement, which is subject to preliminaryand final approval by the court, the Company agreed to pay $12million to the plaintiffs as full and complete settlement of thelitigation. The Company is responsible for $1.2 million of thesettlement amount which has been recognized in selling, general andadministrative expense on the condensed consolidated statements ofoperations, while the remaining $10.8 million will be fully fundedby the Company’s insurance carriers under its directors’ andofficers’ insurance policy.

Management intends to continue to vigorously defend theseproceedings. If for some reason the settlement is not approved andthe Company is ultimately found liable, the liability could have amaterial adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financialstatements for the period or periods in which it is incurred.

NantKwest, Inc., a clinical-stage immunotherapy biotechnologycompany, develops immunotherapeutic treatments for cancer,infectious diseases, and inflammatory diseases in the UnitedStates. The company was formerly known as Conkwest, Inc. andchanged its name to NantKwest, Inc. in July 2015. NantKwest, Inc.was founded in 2002 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.

NATIONAL STAFFING: Mojica Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA-------------------------------------------------------JANNACE MOJICA, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,the Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., theDefendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-10735 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 16, 2018), seeksunpaid wages from Defendant for all the time that they workedovertime hours and were not compensated and for which they did notreceive proper overtime premium pay, and liquidated damagespursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York LaborLaw.

The Defendant had a policy and practice of refusing to properly payits licensed therapists their overtime compensation for their hoursworked in excess of 40 hours per workweek at an amount of at leastone and a half times their regular hourly rate. The Defendant hasfailed to pay Plaintiff and the members of the Collective thepremium overtime wages to which they are entitled under the FLSAfor all hours worked beyond 40 per workweek, the lawsuit says.

According to the complaint, throughout his employment, theDefendants paid Plaintiff a fixed bi-weekly salary of $779.00 and$960.00 during different time periods of his employment, thoughDefendants occasionally paid Plaintiff at lower rates withoutexplanation. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at thestatutorily required overtime rate of one and one-half times hisregular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours inviolation of the FLSA and NYLL. Moreover, Plaintiff's bi-weeklysalary, when converted to an hourly regular rate of pay byoperation of law, often results in an hourly rate of pay below themandated minimum wage in violation of the NYLL.

The Defendants required Plaintiff to successfully effectuateservice of process upon at least ninety-three parties during everytwo-week pay period. The Defendants did not credit failed attemptsto serve parties towards this quota, which may occur when, interalia, Defendants were provided with an incorrect address forservice on a party or when the party is not present at theaddress during the time of attempted service. Because of this,Defendants often required Plaintiff to make numerous attemptsbefore successfully effectuating service of process or beforereporting to a client that service of process could not becompleted. As a result, Defendants required Plaintiff to spend manyhours attempting to serve parties which were not credited as partof his quota because he was unable to successfully effectuateservice on such attempts, the lawsuit says.

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Class Cert. Sought in Mental Health Services Case----------------------------------------------------------------In the class action lawsuit captioned John Doe, on behalf ofhimself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.JEFFREY A. MEYERS, Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department ofHealth and Human Services, in his official capacity, the Defendant,Case No. 1:18-cv-01039-LM (N.H. Cir. Ct.), the Plaintiff asks theCourt for an order:

1. certifying a class of:

"all individuals who are currently being or will be after the date of this Class Action Complaint involuntarily detained pursuant to RSA 135-C:27-33 while awaiting involuntary admission to a Designated Receiving Facility. These individuals are at serious risk of institutionalization at New Hampshire Hospital and other DRF hospitals";

2. approving Plaintiff John Doe as class representative;

3. appointing Plaintiff's counsel to represent the class; and

4. granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper in the circumstances.

According to the complaint, there is a systemic pattern andpractice in New Hampshire where people who may be experiencingmental health crises are involuntarily detained in hospitalemergency rooms without the State providing them with any dueprocess, appointed counsel, or opportunity to contest theirdetention. This practice is known as "psychiatric boarding." As ofOctober 31, 2018, approximately 46 adults and 4 children were beinginvoluntarily "boarded" in emergency rooms under RSA 135-C:27-33while awaiting admission to DRF. Though emergency room wait timescan vary, they can last up to three weeks.[CC]

NEW JERSEY: Governor Murphy Faces Fischer et al. Suit-----------------------------------------------------A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phil Murphy, in hisofficial capacity as Governor of the State of New Jersey. The caseis captioned as SUSAN G FISCHER, and JEANETTE SPECK, individuallyand on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PHILMURPHY, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of NewJersey; NEW JERSEY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; and TOWNSHIP OF OCEANEDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-15628-RMB-KMW(D.N.J., Nov. 2, 2018). The lawsuit alleges violation of the CivilRights Act. The case is assigned to Judge Renee Marie Bumb andreferred to Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams.

State of New Jersey is located in the Northeast region of theUnited States. The State provides a full range of servicesincluding public safety, justice, health, education, economicdevelopment, transportation, recreation and culture. New Jersey hasan economy primarily based on the industries of chemicals andpharmaceuticals, oil refining, transportation and tourism. [BN]

NEW YORK: MSP Recovery Sues for Medicare Reimbursements-------------------------------------------------------MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware limited liabilitycompany, and SERIES 16-08-483, a series of MSP Recovery Claims,Series LLC, the Plaintiffs, vs. NEW YORK CENTRAL MUTUAL FIREINSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation, the Defendant, Case No.1:18-cv-10341 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018), seeks double damages underthe Medicare Secondary Payer Law for Defendant's failure toproperly reimburse conditional payments for enrollees'accident-related medical expenses within the applicable limitationsperiod.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to fulfill itsstatutory duties under the MSP Law as a "no-fault” insurer.Specifically, the Defendant has repeatedly failed to provideprimary payment, or reimburse secondary payments made byPlaintiffs' assignors and Class Members, on behalf of Medicarebeneficiaries enrolled in Part C of the Medicare Act for medicalexpenses resulting from injuries sustained in automobile accidents.The Enrollees were enrolled in Medicare Advantage health plansoffered by Plaintiffs' assignors and Class Members, i.e., MedicareAdvantage Organizations, which suffered an injury-in-fact fromDefendant's failure to reimburse, and accordingly, have standing tosue under 42 U.S.C. section 1395y(b)(3)(A).

Plaintiffs' assignors and the putative Class Members are MAOs thatprovided Medicare benefits to the Enrollees. These Erolleessuffered injuries related to an accident and Plaintiffs' assignorsand the putative Class Members paid for medical items and/orservices required by the Enrollees as a result of the accident.Because the Plaintiffs' assignors' and Class Members' Enrolleeswere also covered by no-fault policies issued by the Defendant. TheDefendant is a primary payer under the MSP Law and must reimbursePlaintiffs and the putative Class Members for their payment ofaccident-related medical expenses, the lawsuit says.[BN]

NIAGARA CREDIT: Oliver Consumer Suit Transferred to W.D. New York-----------------------------------------------------------------The class action styled as Janice M. Oliver pleading on her ownbehalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers,Plaintiff v. Niagara Credit Solutions Inc., Defendant, Case No.7:18-cv-06822 filed on November 20, 2018, was transferred from theU.S. Dist. Ct. for the Southern District of New York to the UnitedStates District Court for the Western District of New York onNovember 27, 2018, and assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-01341-GWC.

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit and was filed underthe Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Niagara Credit Solutions, Inc. is a full service nationalcollection agency that specializes in the recovery of charged offcredit card, consumer loan, student loan and auto deficiencyaccounts.[BN]

NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal in NJ Carpenters Suit Dismissed as Moot------------------------------------------------------------------Novation Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, forthe quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that an appellatecourt has issued a summary order dismissing the appeal as moot andvacating the District Court order, in the class action suitinitiated by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in theSupreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the NewJersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all otherssimilarly situated.

Defendants in the case included NovaStar Mortgage FundingCorporation (NMFC) and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. ("NMI"),wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and NMFC's individualdirectors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the Company("Affiliated Defendants") and several unaffiliated investment banksand credit rating agencies.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for theSouthern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, plaintiff filed anamended complaint. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging thatthe defendants violated Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the SecuritiesAct of 1933, as amended, by making allegedly false statementsregarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for securitiespurchased by plaintiff and the purported class members.

On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss theplaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011, withleave to amend. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss. On March29, 2012, the court dismissed plaintiff's second amended complaintwith prejudice and without leave to replead.

Plaintiff filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals forthe Second Circuit (the "Appellate Court"). On March 1, 2013, theAppellate Court reversed the judgment of the lower court, which haddismissed the case. Also, the Appellate Court vacated the judgmentof the lower court which had held that plaintiff lacked standing,even as a class representative, to sue on behalf of investors insecurities in which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellatecourt remanded the case back to the lower court for furtherproceedings.

On April 23, 2013 plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lowercourt seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal ofplaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was notinvested, and on February 5, 2015, the lower court grantedplaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlierdismissal.

On March 8, 2017, the Affiliated Defendants and all other partiesexecuted an agreement to settle the action, with the contributionof the Affiliated Defendants to the settlement fund being paid bytheir insurance carriers. The court certified a settlement classand granted preliminary approval to the settlement on May 10, 2017.

One member of the settlement class objected to the settlement andsought a stay of the final settlement approval hearing on theground that it did not receive notice of the settlement and had noopportunity to timely opt out of the class. After the courtrejected the motion for a stay, the objector filed an appeal andrequested a stay of the court proceedings pending disposition ofthe appeal.

The Appellate Court denied the temporary stay of the courtproceedings pending a decision on the objector’s request for astay.

On October 19, 2018, the Appellate Court issued a summary orderdismissing the appeal as moot and vacating the District Courtorder.

Novation Companies said, "Assuming the settlement is approved andcompleted, which is expected, the Company will incur no loss. TheCompany believes that the Affiliated Defendants have meritoriousdefenses to the case and, if the settlement is not approved,expects them to defend the case vigorously."

Novation Companies, Inc., through its subsidiary, HealthcareStaffing, Inc., provides outsourced health care staffing andrelated services primarily to Community Service Boards in Georgia.It also owns a portfolio of mortgage securities. The company wasformerly known as NovaStar Financial, Inc. and changed its name toNovation Companies, Inc. in May 2012. Novation Companies, Inc. wasfounded in 1996 and is based in Kansas City, Missouri.

On August 19, 2016, a purported stockholder of Tokai filed aputative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State ofCalifornia, County of San Francisco, entitled Jackie888, Inc. v.Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. CGC-16-553796. Theplaintiff sought to represent a class of purchasers of Tokai commonstock in or traceable to Tokai's IPO.

On October 19, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss or stay theaction on grounds of forum non conveniens, and certain individualdefendants moved to quash the plaintiff's summons for lack ofpersonal jurisdiction. On February 27, 2017, the Superior Courtentered an order granting defendants' motion to stay the lawsuit.

On May 24, 2018, the plaintiff dismissed its complaint in theSuperior Court of the State of California and refiled its complaintin the Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court Departmentof the Suffolk County Trial Court, Massachusetts ("MassachusettsState Court"). On June 28, 2018, plaintiff Wu moved to consolidatethe Jackie888 Action with the Wu v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., etal., 16-3725 BLS.

On June 29, 2018, plaintiffs Jackie888 and Wu filed a consolidatedcomplaint. On July 6, 2018, the Jackie888 Action was consolidatedwith the Wu Action.

According to the complaint, the Defendants own, operate, or controltwo restaurants, located at 151-28 81 Street Howard Beach, NewYork, 11414 under the name "Nuria's Restaurant". The Plaintiffshave been employed as a waitress, waiter, cook, and dishwasher atthe restaurants located at 138-16 Jamaica Ave, Jamaica, NY 11435and 89-52 146 th St, Jamaica, NY 11435.

The Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours perweek, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread ofhours compensation for the hours that they have worked. Rather,Defendants have failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of thehours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for anyhours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for anyadditional overtime premium. Further, Defendants have failed to payPlaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in whichthey have had to work over 10 hours a day, the lawsuit says.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully andintentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLLby engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay itsemployees, including Plaintiffs, minimum wage for each hour workedand overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 eachworkweek, the lawsuit says.[BN]

According to the complaint, the fees -- which Ocwen habitually addsto residential mortgage loans it services -- are for"Default-Related Services, i.e. services ostensibly performed whena borrower defaults on a loan. In 2009, Defendant Ocwen, a majorservicer of residential mortgage loans throughout the UnitedStates, purportedly spun-off Defendant Altisource andcontemporaneously entered into an exclusive contract withAltisource to provide Ocwen with Default-Related Services. Ocwenalso agreed to purchase or license loan servicing software built byAltisource. Even though Altisource and Ocwen were technically andby outward appearance separate entities, on information and beliefthey shared common ownership, and their legal separation was infact an artifice designed to mask the existence of the Enterpriseand facilitate the imposition and collection of fees forDefault-Related Services.

A loan servicer can only charge a borrower for Default-RelatedServices in limited instances, as set out in the applicable deed oftrust. Additionally, as Default-Related Services exist only toprotect the lender's security interest in the property underlyingthe mortgage, loan servicers are prohibited from enrichingthemselves through Default-Related Services and making this into aprofit center. In this regard, loan servicers may demand andcollect no more from borrowers than the actual cost of theDefault-Related Services which are in fact performed. Typically,loan servicers contract with third-party providers -- such asAltisource- which in turn hire their own vendors to perform theDefault-Related Services. Additionally, loan servicers areforbidden from charging participants receiving loan modificationsunder the federally-funded Home Affordable Modification Program(HAMP) any fees for property valuations.

The Altisource/Ocwen Enterprise has, through self-dealing, unfairlyprofited from the Default-Related Services. Specifically, this caseseeks recovery for the following fees that were improperly andillegally charged to borrowers and collected by the Enterprise:

(a) Fees for Broker Price Opinions (BPO's) which were neverperformed but where instead different and far-cheaper HybridValuations were secretly substituted in their place;

(b) Fees for Hybrid Valuations well in excess of their fairmarket value;

(c) Fees for property inspections which were improperly markedup and billed to borrowers at artificially inflated prices;

(d) Fees for property inspections that in actuality were neverperformed; and

(e) Fees for property valuations performed pursuant to HAMPloan modifications in violation of HAMP regulations saying thatsuch fees could not be assessed.

These fees were automatically assessed by a computer programprovided to Ocwen by Altisource, and done as part of a scheme bythe Enterprise to defraud HAMP participants along with the federalgovernment, securing for themselves not just revenue they had noright to receive, but also an unfair competitive advantage overother mortgage servicing companies, the lawsuit says.[BN]

OHIO NATIONAL: Browning Sues over Sale of Variable Annuity Policy-----------------------------------------------------------------LANCE BROWNING, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, Plaintiff v. THE OHIO NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;OHIO NATIONAL LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY; and OHIO NATIONAL EQUITIES,INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00763-SJD-SKB (S.D. Ohio, Nov.6, 2018) seeks an injunction to prevent the Defendants fromterminating its obligations to the Plaintiff and the class, as wellas declaratory relief resolving the Defendants' future obligationspursuant to so-called Selling Agreements.

According to the complaint, the Defendants induced the sale oftheir policies by promising annual, recurring commissions to thebroker-dealers and, by extension, the securities representatives,and customers have purchased these policies believing that theywill be able to rely on their trusted securities representatives toadvise them on how to manage the investments in the policy andwhether or when to annuitize or surrender the policy. Havinginduced the sales of these policies based on these promises, theDefendants announced that it does not intend to hold up their endof the bargain -- it is refusing to pay the promised recurringcommissions, and thereby effectively cutting off customers fromreceiving financial advice about these policies from their trustedfinancial advisors.

The Ohio National Life Insurance Company offers life insuranceservices, and insurance and annuity products. The company wasincorporated in 1909 and is based in Cincinnati, Ohio. The OhioNational Life Insurance Company operates as a subsidiary of OhioNational Financial Services, Inc. [BN]

In this putative class action, the plaintiffs seek declaratory andinjunctive relief for alleged violations of their equal protectionand due process rights, their right to pretrial liberty, and theirSixth Amendment right to counsel.

In their motion to dismiss, the moving defendants assert six basesfor dismissal: (1) lack of Article III standing; (2) jurisdictionalissues based on federalism and comity; (3) failure to challengebail requirements through a writ of habeas corpus; (4) failure tostate a claim for injunctive relief; (5) failure to state a claimthat can be cured through declaratory relief; and (6) judicialimmunity. However, in light of the fact that all four namedplaintiffs paid their bonds and were released from jail in the daysfollowing the filing of the complaint, the Court must first addressmootness, a threshold jurisdictional issue which the Court mayraise sua sponte.

The mootness doctrine is a corollary to this case-and-controversyrequirement; thus, when an action is moot, the federal court isdeprived of subject matter jurisdiction over it. The mootnessdoctrine provides that an actual controversy must be extant at allstages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed. Acase becomes moot when a plaintiff no longer suffers actual injurythat can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.

Here, it is immediately clear that none of the four namedplaintiffs continues to suffer an injury that can be redressed bythis litigation, as none of them remains detained due to aninability to pay bond. Rather, all four plaintiffs paid their bondsand were released from jail in the few days after the complaint wasfiled, and before their initial arraignments took place. Further,where, as here, a party seeks equitable relief only, past exposureto allegedly illegal conduct is insufficient to show that aplaintiff has a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation;rather, the party must `demonstrate a good chance of being likewiseinjured in the future.

Therefore, the named plaintiffs' allegations that they werepreviously detained and unable to pay their bonds does notestablish a live controversy warranting prospective equitablerelief.

Moreover, the Court assumes that the plaintiffs will conduct theiractivities within the law and so avoid arrest as well as exposureto the challenged course of conduct said to be followed bydefendants. Therefore, there is no reasonable expectation ordemonstrated probability that these same named plaintiffs will besubjected to new bond amounts.

Therefore, the Court finds that the four named plaintiffs' claimsare moot.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 19, 2018 Opinionand Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y74zelqy fromLeagle.com.

Terry H Bitting, in his capacity as Tulsa County Special Judge,Tammy Bruce, in her capacity as Tulsa County Special Judge &Deborah Ludi Leitch, in her capacity as Tulsa County Special Judge,Defendants, represented by Stefanie Erin Lawson , Office of theAttorney General LITIGATION SECTION.

According to the complaint, on or about August 9, 2017 and October3, 2017, Defendant used Defendant's telephone facsimile machine tosend unsolicited advertisements to Retina's facsimile machine.Defendant's telephone facsimile machine has the capacity (A) totranscribe text or images or both from paper into an electricsignal and to transmit that signal over a regular telephone line,or (B) to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronicsignal received over a regular telephone line onto paper, asdefined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(3).

Defendant's August 9, 2017 and October 3, 2017 advertisementsattempted to solicit Retina’s representative to perform researchwork for Defendant in exchange for pay. These August 9, 2017 andOctober 3, 2017 facsimile transmissions were advertising thecommercial availability for paid work to Retina pursuant to 47U.S.C. section 227(a)(5). The facsimiles from Defendant's telephonefacsimile machine to Retina's facsimile were unsolicited by Retinaand without Retina's permission or Defendant's facsimiles forcedRetina and class members to pay for the costs of paper for unwantedand unsolicited advertisements from Defendant. The lawsuitsays.[BN]

OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: $18.5MM Placed Into Escrow in "Nallagonda"---------------------------------------------------------------Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the companydeposited the $18.5 million settlement payment into an escrowaccount, pending final court approval of the settlement in KiranKumar Nallagonda v. Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. et al.

On November 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed inthe United States District Court for the District of Maryland by asingle plaintiff, individually and on behalf of other personssimilarly situated, against the Company and three current or formerexecutive officers of the Company.

On March 21, 2016, the court entered an order appointing Dr. RaffyMirzayan as lead plaintiff and the firm of Hagens Berman SobolShapiro LLP as lead counsel. On March 11, 2018, the company enteredinto a memorandum of understanding to settle the Nallagonda Action.Subsequently, on June 5, 2018, the parties executed a Stipulationand Settlement Agreement in which the Company agreed in principleto pay $18.5 million in cash to create a settlement fund for thebenefit of class members. On June 12, 2018, the lead plaintifffiled an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of theparties’ settlement.

On September 4, 2018, the Court entered an order preliminarilyapproving the settlement and scheduling a hearing for February 4,2019 to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair,reasonable and adequate and whether the case should therefore bedismissed with prejudice. The Company also expects that leadplaintiff will seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses fromthe settlement fund. Both the settlement itself and any award tolead plaintiff of attorneys' fees and expenses remain subject toCourt approval. The Company can provide no assurance that the Courtwill approve the settlement.

On October 3, 2018, the Company deposited the $18.5 millionsettlement payment into an escrow account, pending final Courtapproval of the settlement.

The Company had a $5.0 million executive and corporate securitiesliability insurance policy in place at the time of the allegations.The Company received the remaining $4.8 million of unused policycoverage for the shareholder settlement of the Nallagonda Action onOctober 9, 2018 which is recorded as Insurance receivable in thecondensed consolidated balance sheets at both September 30, 2018and December 31, 2017.

Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. researches, develops, manufactures,markets, and distributes regenerative medicine products in theUnited States. Its products include Grafix and Stravix for treatingchronic wounds of diabetic foot ulcers, venous leg ulcers, pressureulcers, arterial ulcers, and severe burns, as well as surgical andtrauma wounds; BIO4 for bone repair and regeneration in spine,trauma, extremity, cranial, and foot and ankle surgeries; andCartiform for treating articular cartilage lesions in the knee andother joints. Osiris Therapeutics, Inc. was founded in 1992 and isheadquartered in Columbia, Maryland.

OVASCIENCE INC: Wheby Balks at Merger Deal with Millendo--------------------------------------------------------EARL WHEBY, JR., Individually and On Behalf of All Others SimilarlySituated, the Plaintiff, vs. OVASCIENCE, INC., CHRISTOPHER KROEGER,RICHARD ALDRICH, JEFFREY D. CAPELLO, MARY FISHER, JOHN HOWE, MARCKOZIN, and JOHN SEXTON, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01811-UNA(D. Del., Nov. 16, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendants and allpersons acting in concert with them from proceeding with,consummating, or closing a proposed transaction, and in the eventDefendants consummate the proposed transaction, rescinding it andsetting it aside or awarding rescissory damages.

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on August 9,2018, pursuant to which OvaScience, Inc. will merge with MillendoTherapeutics, Inc. On November 6, 2018, the defendants filed aproxy statement with the United States Securities and ExchangeCommission in connection with the proposed transaction. The ProxyStatement, which scheduled a stockholder vote on the ProposedTransaction for December 4, 2018, omits material information withrespect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the ProxyStatement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff allegesthat defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act in connection with the Proxy Statement.

OvaScience is a publicly traded biotechnology company, focused onfemale infertility. It was founded in 2011 by Michelle Dipp,Richard Aldrich, Christoph Westphal, Jonathan Tilly, and DavidSinclair based on scientific work done by Tilly concerningmammalian oogonial stem cells and work on mitochondria bySinclair.[BN]

Defendant is a fitness center and gym. To promote its services,Defendant engages in unsolicited marketing, harming thousands ofconsumers in the process. Through this action, Plaintiff seeksinjunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which hasresulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, anddisruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiffalso seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members ofthe class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies,says the complaint.

Plaintiff is a natural person who, at all times relevant to thisaction, was a resident of St. Lucie County, Florida.

Defendant is a Florida limited liability company whose principaloffice is located at 1001 U.S. North Highway 1, Suite 201, Jupiter,Florida 33477. Defendant directs, markets, and provides itsbusiness activities throughout the State of Florida.[BN]

PANDORA MEDIA: Knapp Balks at Merger Deal with Sirius XM--------------------------------------------------------MICHAEL KNAPP Individually and on Behalf of All Others SimilarlySituated, the Plaintiff, vs. PANDORA MEDIA, INC., GREGORY B.MAFFEI, ROGER FAXON, DAVID J. FREAR, JASON HIRSCHHORN, TIMOTHYLEIWEKE, ROGER J. LYNCH, MICHAEL M. LYNTON, and JAMES E. MEYER, theDefendant, Case 3:18-cv-06927-WHO (N.D. Cal., Nov. 15, 2018),asserts claims against Defendants for violations of Sections 14(a)and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, and seeks to enjoinDefendants from holding a stockholder vote and taking any steps toconsummate a Proposed Transaction unless and until the materialinformation is disclosed to Pandora's public common stockholderssufficiently in advance of the stockholder vote or, in the eventthe Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damagesresulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, on September 23, 2018, Pandora andSirius XM entered into an agreement and plan of merger andreorganization, pursuant to which Sirius XM will acquire Pandora.On October 25, 2018, as contemplated by the Merger Agreement,Sirius XM Radio Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly-ownedsubsidiary of Sirius XM, Billboard Holding Company, Inc., aDelaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Pandora, andBillboard Acquisition Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation andwholly-owned subsidiary of New Holding Company entered into joinderagreements to become party to the Merger Agreement.

In sum, each outstanding share of Pandora will be converted intothe right to receive 1.44 shares of Sirius XM common stock. Basedon the closing price of Sirius XM's stock on September 21, 2018 of$6.98, the per share value of Pandora common stock implied by theMerger Consideration was $10.25, or approximately $3.5 billion invalue. On October 31, 2018, in order to convince Pandora’s publiccommon stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction,Defendants authorized the filing of a materially incomplete andmisleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the SEC, inviolation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Inparticular, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleadinginformation concerning: (i) financial projections for Pandora; and(ii) the valuation analyses conducted by the Company's financialadvisors, Centerview Partners LLC and LionTree Advisors LLC. Thespecial meeting of Pandora stockholders to vote on the ProposedTransaction is approaching, as the Proposed Transaction is expectedto be completed during the during the first quarter of 2019. It istherefore imperative that the material information that has beenomitted from the Proxy is disclosed to the Company's stockholdersprior to the stockholder vote on the Proposed Transaction so thatthey can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights, thelawsuit says.[BN]

On September 23, 2018, Pandora entered into an Agreement and Planof Merger with SiriusXM Holdings Inc., pursuant to which SiriusXMwill acquire Pandora in an all-stock transaction valued atapproximately $3.5 billion. Pursuant to the Proposed Transaction,each holder of Pandora common stock will receive 1.44 shares ofSiriusXM common stock for each share of Pandora common stock issuedand outstanding immediately prior to the closing.

On November 1, 2018, Defendant authorized SiriusXM to file amaterially incomplete and misleading preliminary registrationstatement on Form S-4 with the SEC, urging the Company'sshareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, says thecomplaint. The Registration Statement omits material informationregarding the Proposed Transaction, rendering it false andmisleading in violation of the Exchange Act.

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from proceeding with theProposed Transaction. In the event that the Proposed Transaction isconsummated, Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from the Defendantsfor their violations of the Exchange Act, adds the complaint.

Plaintiff is, and has been at all times relevant hereto, the ownerof Pandora common stock.

Pandora is a Delaware corporation with its principal executiveoffices located at 2100 Franklin Street, Suite 700, Oakland,California 94612. The Company's common stock is traded on the NewYork Stock Exchange under the symbol "P".

Gregory B. Maffei has been the Chairman of the Board sinceSeptember 2017.

Roger Conant Faxon has been a member of the Board since June 2015.

David J. Frear has been a member of the Board since September 2017.Frear has also been the Senior Executive Vice President and ChiefFinancial Officer of Sirius XM since June 2015.

PAPA MURPHY'S: Settlement of Lennartson Case Wins Final Approval----------------------------------------------------------------Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the courtgave final approval to the settlement in the putative class actionlawsuit filed by plaintiff John Lennartson, in its Amended FinalOrder Approving Class Action Settlement, which resulted in thesettlement and release of all claims, subject to appeal.

The Company is named as a defendant in a putative class actionlawsuit filed by plaintiff John Lennartson on May 7, 2015, in theUnited States District Court for the Western District ofWashington.

The lawsuit alleges the Company failed to comply with therequirements of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") whenit sent SMS text messages to consumers. Mr. Lennartson asks thatthe court certify the putative class and that statutory damagesunder the TCPA be awarded to plaintiff and each class member. OnOctober 14, 2016, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")granted the Company a limited waiver from the TCPA's writtenconsent requirements for certain text messages that it sent upthrough October 16, 2013 to individuals who, like Mr. Lennartson,provided written consent prior to October 16, 2013.

On October 20, 2016, the Company filed a motion for summaryjudgment seeking dismissal. On October 27, 2016, Mr. Lennartsonfiled a motion seeking to extend the time to respond to the summaryjudgment motion on the basis that he intends to appeal the FCC'swaiver. On November 4, 2016, the Court granted Mr. Lennartson'smotion to continue his response to the Company's summary judgmentmotion until he could complete his appeal of the FCC's waiverorder.

In addition, on January 9, 2017, Mr. Lennartson filed an amendedcomplaint adding additional plaintiffs, some of whom providedconsent after October 16, 2013, and who are therefore differentlysituated from Mr. Lennartson, as well as additional Washingtonstate law claims. On October 27, 2017, plaintiffs moved to certifytheir putative class, which the Company opposed, and on November22, 2017, the Company moved for summary judgment on all ofplaintiffs' claims. The Court issued a stay of the case for 30 dayswhile the parties pursued settlement negotiations.

On April 23, 2018, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreementand Release and plaintiffs filed a Motion and Memorandum forPreliminary Approval of Settlement with the Court. The Court gavepreliminary approval to the settlement on May 16, 2018, in itsPreliminary Approval Order Approving Settlement, CertifyingSettlement Class, Approving Notice Plan, and Setting FairnessHearing. The Court gave final approval to the settlement onSeptember 28, 2018, in its Amended Final Order Approving ClassAction Settlement, which resulted in the settlement and release ofall claims, subject to appeal.

Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns,operates, and franchises Take 'N' Bake pizza stores. The companyoperates in three segments: Domestic Company Stores, DomesticFranchise, and International. The company was founded in 1981 andis headquartered in Vancouver, Washington.

PBF HOLDING: Goldstein Class Action Ongoing-------------------------------------------PBF Holding Co LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the companycontinues to defend itself from a class action suit entitled,Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al.

On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon MobilCorporation, et al., the company and PBF Energy Company LLC, andthe company's subsidiaries, PBF Energy Western Region LLC andTorrance Refining Company LLC and the manager of the company'sTorrance refinery along with Exxon Mobil Corporation were named asdefendants in a class action and representative action complaintfiled on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas, Gisela Janette LaBella and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State ofCalifornia, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strictliability, ultrahazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, apermanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at theTorrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entitiessubsequent to the company's acquisition in July 2016 is alsoreferenced in the complaint. To the extent that plaintiffs' claimsrelate to the ESP explosion, Exxon has retained responsibility forany liabilities that would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to theagreement relating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery.

PBF Holding said, "As this matter is in the class certificationphase, we cannot currently estimate the amount or the timing of itsresolution. We presently believe the outcome will not have amaterial impact on our financial position, results of operations orcash flows."

PBF Holding Company LLC refines and supplies unbrandedtransportation fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks,lubricants, and other petroleum products in the United States andinternationally. The company was founded in 2008 and is based inParsippany, New Jersey. PBF Holding Company LLC is a subsidiary ofPBF Energy Company LLC.

On September 18, 2018, in Michelle Kendig and Jim Kendig, et al. v.ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al., PBF Energy Limited and TorranceRefining Company LLC along with ExxonMobil Oil Corporation andExxonMobil Pipeline Company were named as defendants in a classaction and representative action complaint filed on behalf ofMichelle Kendig, Jim Kendig and others similarly situated.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State ofCalifornia, County of Los Angeles and alleges failure to authorizeand permit uninterrupted rest and meal periods, failure to furnishaccurate wage statements, violation of the Private AttorneysGeneral Act and violation of the California Unfair Business andCompetition Law. Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified economicdamages, statutory damages, civil penalties provided by statute,disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, declaratory relief,interest, attorney's fees and costs.

To the extent that plaintiffs' claims accrued prior to July 1,2016, ExxonMobil has retained responsibility for any liabilitiesthat would arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreementrelating to the acquisition of the Torrance refinery and logisticsassets.

PBF Holding said, "As this matter was recently filed, we cannotcurrently estimate the amount or the timing of its resolution. Wepresently believe the outcome will not have a material impact onour financial position, results of operations or cash flows."

PBF Holding Company LLC refines and supplies unbrandedtransportation fuels, heating oil, petrochemical feedstocks,lubricants, and other petroleum products in the United States andinternationally. The company was founded in 2008 and is based inParsippany, New Jersey. PBF Holding Company LLC is a subsidiary ofPBF Energy Company LLC.

PHILIPS NA: Website not Accessible to Blind, Martinez Says----------------------------------------------------------PEDRO MARTINEZ, Individually and as the representative of a classof similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. PHILIPS NORTHAMERICA LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06297 (E.D.N.Y., Nov.6, 2018), alleges that Temptations failed to design, construct,maintain, and operate its website -- usa.philips.com/shop -- to befully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and otherblind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americanswith Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impairedand legally blind person who requires screen-reading software toread website content using his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms"blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visualimpairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that theyhave a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limitedvision; others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureaureport, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States arevisually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, andaccording to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report,approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the Stateof New York. The Defendant is denying blind and visually-impairedpersons throughout the United States with equal access to the goodsand services.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly worked over 40hours per workweek. Throughout her employment by Defendants,Plaintiff's scheduled working hours were from 5:00 p.m. until 2:00a.m., for five days per week. The Plaintiff worked a total ofapproximately 45 hours per week throughout her employment byDefendants. FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members workedsimilar hours as Plaintiff. Throughout her employment, thePlaintiff was compensated at a regular rate of $12.00 per hour forhours worked up until 40 hours per workweek.

Throughout her entire employment, Plaintiff was not properlycompensated her proper wages for all hours worked, due toDefendants' policy of time-shaving. From in or around 2015, thePlaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members were allrequired to clock-in. While the clock-in machine generally workedat the beginning of the shift, the machine failed to recordPlaintiff's, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs' and Class members'clock-out time. As a result, Plaintiff's, FLSA CollectivePlaintiffs' and Class members' clock-out time records were keptmanually. From in or around 2015, the new manager, Robert [LNU]("Last Name Unknown") adjusted Plaintiff's, FLSA CollectivePlaintiffs' and Class members' work hours on a weekly basis suchthat they were paid for several hours fewer than actually workedper week. Defendants' policy to manually adjust the hours wasintended to ensure that Defendants were not required to compensatePlaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class members theirovertime premium, the lawsuit says.[BN]

all current and former Maintenance Mechanics employed by Plastipak Packaging, Inc. ("Defendant"), nationwide, within in three year period preceding November 22, 2017 ("Putative Class"), who worked over 40 hours in one or more workweeks and who were paid a shift differential in one or more such workweeks.

2. requiring Defendant to identify all members of the Putative Class by providing a list of their names, last known addresses, dates of employment, cell phone number, and e- mail addresses in electronic and importable format, e.g. a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, within 14 days of an entry of an order;

3. permitting Hernandez's counsel to send Court-approved notice

of this action to the putative class members of the proposed

collective action via U.S. Mail, e-mail, and text message;

4. permitting Hernandez's counsel to send a reminder notice via

e-mail and text message to putative class members at the half-way point in the notice period; and

5. approving a ninety-day opt-in period from the date the Court-approved notice is sent during which the putative class members may join this case by returning their written consents.[CC]

All persons who received text messages on behalf of Pollo Operations, Inc. from March 1, 2012 to March 15, 2017 to telephone numbers that had been reassigned to them after the original or prior owners of the telephone numbers consented to receive such text messages from Pollo Operations, Inc., who did not consent to receive such text messages, and who can be identified through the reverse telephone number look-up process utilized by the Settlement Administrator. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (a) Defendant and its present and former officers, directors, employees, shareholders, insurers, and their successors, heirs, assigns, and legal representatives; and (b) the Court and members of the Court's staff.

The Court confirms the appointment of the Plaintiff as classrepresentative and attorneys John Yanchunis Sr., Esq., and JonathanB. Cohen, Esq., as Class Counsel.

By his request, William Jr., Claim No. PPO3254093, is excluded fromthe Settlement Class and this case.

The Revised Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement is approved. The $5,000 service award to the Plaintiff as Class Representativeis approved. The attorneys' fees award in the amount of $243,750(25% of the Settlement Fund) and the cost award in the amount of$5,000 to Class Counsel is approved.

The case is dismissed with prejudice.[CC]

PONTIAC, MI: $4.25MM Settlement in Health Care Benefits Suit OK'd-----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Eastern District ofMichigan, Southern Division, issued a Memorandum and Order grantingParties' Joint Motion for Approval of a Class Action Settlement inthe case captioned THE CITY OF PONTIAC RETIRED EMPLOYEESASSOCIATION, DELMER ANDERSON, JOHN CLAYA, THOMAS HUNTER, HENRY C.SHOEMAKER, YVETTE TALLEY and DEBRA WOODS, Plaintiffs, v. LOUISSCHIMMEL, INDIVIDUALLY HON. AVERN COHN AND IN HIS CAPACITY ASEMERGENCY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF PONTIAC, CATHY SQUARE,INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE HUMANRESOURCES AND LABOR RELATIONS DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF PONTIAC ANDTHE CITY OF PONTIAC, Defendants. Case No. 12-12830. (E.D. Mich.).

This is a dispute over the continuation of health care benefits. In2012, plaintiffs the City of Pontiac Retired Employees Association,and several individuals sued defendant Louis Schimmel in hiscapacity as Emergency Manager for the City of Pontiac and the Cityof Pontiac asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and 11U.S.C. Section 903.

Under the Settlement Agreement, the City of Pontiac will pay aninitial amount of $4,250,000 to resolve this lawsuit. Whereadditional annual contributions towards the cost of retiree healthbenefits are required as determined by an actuary, the City ofPontiac will contribute an annual amount of up to $1,500,000.

The $4,250,000 payment will be paid within 90 days of the date thenew VEBA is approved by the Internal Revenue Service, or the datethe new VEBA is created, whichever comes later in time. The annualpayment of up to $1,500,000 will be paid to the VEBA on or beforeJune 30 of the fiscal year in which an annual contribution isdetermined to be required by an actuary. The first annualcontribution of up to $1,500,000 will be due within one (1) yearand six (6) months of the date that an actuarial valuationdetermines that a contribution to the new VEBA is required.

Objections

Class Member Objections

The record contains objections from four (4) class members whichrepresents less than .3% of the approximately 1,500 retirees,spouses and dependents class members covered by the SettlementAgreement. This extremely minimal level of opposition representssignificant support by the class for the Settlement Agreement.

Legality

The Hospital Retirees also contend that the Settlement Agreement isillegal. During the September 12, 2018 fairness hearing on theParties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class ActionSettlement, the Court requested that the Parties submit asupplemental brief providing authority indicating that the City ofPontiac can as part of the Settlement terminate the overfundedPontiac General Employees Retirement System, create a new pensionsystem and use a portion of the overfunding to fund a VEBA thatprovides health benefits to the Class Members, i.e. demonstrate thelegality of the Settlement Agreement. The Parties provided thatauthority on September 27, 2018.

Here, the Settlement Agreement does not actually divert systemassets, but creates a new system altogether and even then only withIRS approval. The new system will be one with an actual surplus,that is fully funded and capable of meeting all liabilities forpension payments. Moreover, the actual suprlus that is maintainedis a substantial one: thirty percent above and beyond what isactuarially required to meet the required actuarial obligations toall GERS retirees, providing a substantial cushion. Finally, unlikethe scheme at issue in Wayne County, nothing in the SettlementAgreement affects the City of Pontiac's annual requiredcontribution to the existing or new general employees retirementsystem, nor does it offset any annual required contribution basedon contributions made to a separate fund.

The Hospital Retirees also object to the Settlement Agreementbecause they will not longer receive the $400 monthly benefitinstituted by the Emergency Manager. The record is clear that theincrease in the monthly benefit approved by the Emergency Managerin 2013 was temporary and is not an accrued financial benefit.Thus, this is not a valid objection.

In sum, and as fully explained in the Parties' papers, theSettlement Agreement does not run afoul of state or federal law.

Five Year Notice

The Hospital Retirees also argue that the Settlement Agreementshould have provided a five year advance notice as provided byERISA. This is incorrect. Under ERISA Section 4044(d)(2),distribution to the employer from a plan shall not be treated asfailing to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph if the planhas been in effect for fewer than 5 years and the plan has providedfor such a distribution since the effective date of the plan.

This ERISA section does not apply if the plan at issue is agovernmental plan. The term `governmental plan' means a planestablished or maintained for its employees by the Government ofthe United States, by the government of any State or politicalsubdivision thereof, or by any agency or instrumentality of any ofthe foregoing. Both the current and proposed plans are establishedand maintained by the City of Pontiac, which is a politicalsubdivision of the State.

Thus, the Court can approve the Settlement Agreement in the absenceof a five year waiting period prior to plan termination.

Additional Findings

he Court finds after the hearing and based upon all submissions ofthe Parties and interested persons that the Parties' proposedSettlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate. TheSettlement Agreement is consistent with and in compliance with allapplicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,the United States Code, and the United States Constitution, andother applicable law. The Court additionally finds that, interalia:

(a) The terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement wereentered into by experienced counsel and only after extensive,arm's-length negotiations conducted for two years, in good faith,with the assistance of two highly-regarded and experienced privatefacilitators. The negotiations involved the parties' counsel inface to face meetings, telephone conversations and writtencommunications. The parties exchanged and evaluated proposals andcounter-proposals. The Settlement Agreement is not the result ofcollusion, nor is it illegal.

(b) The Parties' dispute is genuine, the outcome of continuedlitigation is uncertain, and that continued litigation would carrysubstantial risks for both sides, and that, in particular, classmembers would bear the risk that continued litigation would leavethem with nothing if they were to lose on the merits, and perhapsnothing as a result of delay. These circumstances militate in favorof a settlement that ends uncertainty, avoids further delay,eliminates risk, promptly ameliorates hardship, and providessignificant benefit to each side and to the class as a whole.

The Settlement Agreement is a rational and salutary resolution ofcontested, uncertain, protracted and risky litigation. TheSettlement Agreement is informed, prudent, within an appropriaterange of reasonableness and beneficial to all parties and ClassMembers.

All members of the Settlement Class are bound by this Judgment andby the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including the scope ofthe Released Claims described in the Settlement Agreement.

Nothing in the Settlement Agreement, this Order or the ConsentJudgment, nor the fact of the settlement constitutes any admissionby any of the Parties of any liability, wrongdoing, or violating oflaw, damages or lack thereof, or of the validity or invalidity ofany claim or defense asserted in this case. If the SettlementAgreement is not upheld on appeal, or is otherwise terminated forany reason, the settlement and all negotiations, proceedings, anddocuments prepared, and statements made in connection therewith,shall be without prejudice to any Party and shall not be deemed orconstrued to be an admission by any party of any fact, matter, orposition of law; all Parties shall stand in the same proceduralposition as if the Settlement Agreement had not been negotiated,made, or filed with the Court.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 19, 2018Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6veh34gfrom Leagle.com.

According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff as adelivery driver but failed to pay him and other delivery driversovertime premium wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in aworkweek. It also paid Plaintiff and other drivers far less thanstate and federal minimum wage.

Additionally, when Plaintiff left Quick Delivery Service and begandelivering Zimmer medical products for a competitor, Quick DeliveryService made a baseless threat to sue Zimmer and the competitor forbreach of contract and tortious interference with contract. As aresult, Plaintiff was rendered unemployed for several months andlost out on a lucrative job opportunity, the lawsuit says.[BN]

QUINTANA ENERGY: Unit Still Defends Class Suit Over FLSA Violation------------------------------------------------------------------Quintana Energy Services Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that thecompany's subsidiary continues to defend itself from a class actionsuit alleging violations of state based wage and hour laws and theFair Labor Standards Act.

A class action has been filed against one of the Company'ssubsidiaries alleging violations of state based wage and hour lawsand the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") relating to non-paymentof overtime pay.

The Company believes its pay practices comply with the FLSA.

Quintana Energy said, "The case is working its way through thevarious stages of the legal process, however, management believesthe Company's exposure is not material."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Quintana Energy Services Inc. provides oilfield services to onshoreoil and natural gas exploration and production companies operatingin conventional and unconventional plays in the United States. Itoperates through four segments: Directional Drilling Services,Pressure Pumping Services, Pressure Control Services, and WirelineServices. The company was founded in 2017 and is headquartered inHouston, Texas.

QUORUM HEALTH: Bid to Drop 3rd Amended Zwick Complaint Pending--------------------------------------------------------------Quorum Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the defendants'motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in Zwick Partners LPand Aparna Rao, Individually and On Behalf of All Others SimilarlySituated v. Quorum Health Corporation, Community Health Systems,Inc., Wayne T. Smith, W. Larry Cash, Thomas D. Miller and MichaelJ. Culotta, is pending.

On September 9, 2016, a shareholder filed a purported class actionin the United States District Court for the Middle District ofTennessee against the Company and certain of its officers. TheAmended Complaint, filed on September 13, 2017, purports to bebrought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons (other thandefendants) who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of theCompany between May 2, 2016 and August 10, 2016 and alleges thatthe Company and certain of its officers violated federal securitieslaws, including Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making alleged false and/ormisleading statements and failing to disclose certain informationregarding aspects of the Company's business, operations andcompliance policies.

On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaintadding additional defendants, CHS, Wayne T. Smith and W. LarryCash. On June 23, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss,which Plaintiff opposed on August 22, 2017. On April 19, 2018, theCourt denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and the Company filedits answer to the Second Amended Complaint on May 18, 2018.

On July 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed its motion for classcertification, which Defendants opposed on August 31, 2018. Themotion for class certification is currently pending. On September14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint addingadditional alleged misstatements.

On October 12, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss the newallegations, which motion is currently pending. The case is indiscovery, and the Company is vigorously defending itself in thismatter.

Quorum Health said, "The Company is unable to predict the outcomeof this matter. However, it is reasonably possible that the Companymay incur a loss in connection with this matter. The Company isunable to reasonably estimate the amount or range of suchreasonably possible loss because discovery has only recentlystarted and the case remains in its early stages. Under somecircumstances, losses incurred in connection with adverse outcomesin this matter could be material."

Quorum Health Corporation provides hospital and outpatienthealthcare services in the United States. Its hospital andoutpatient healthcare services include general and acute care,emergency room, general and specialty surgery, critical care,internal medicine, obstetric, diagnostic, psychiatric, andrehabilitation services. The company was incorporated in 2015 andis headquartered in Brentwood, Tennessee.

According to the complaint, the Defendants uniformly administered acorporate practice of: (a) failing to provide accurate itemizedwage statements; (b) failing to pay employees minimum wages fortime spent undergoing security checks after they were clocked-out;(c) failing to pay employees overtime wages for time spentundergoing security checks after they were clocked-out; (d) failingto provide off-duty 30-minute meal breaks to employees who worked 5hours or longer in one shift; and (e) failing to provide off-duty10-minute rest breaks to employees who worked 3.5 hours or longer.

Recreational Equipment, Inc., commonly known as REI, is an Americanretail and outdoor recreation services corporation. It is organizedas a consumers' co-operative. REI sells sporting goods, campinggear, travel equipment, and clothing. It also offers services suchas outdoor-oriented vacations and courses.[BN]

RECRO PHARMA: Continues to Defend IV Meloxicam-Related Suit-----------------------------------------------------------Recro Pharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the companycontinues to defend against a securities class action suit relatedto the New Drug Application (NDA) for IV meloxicam.

On May 31, 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filedagainst the Company and certain of its officers and directors inthe U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania(Case No. 2:18-cv-02279-MMB) that purported to state a claim foralleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Actand Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, based on statements madeby the Company concerning the NDA for IV meloxicam.

The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit and intendsto vigorously defend against it.

Recro Pharma said, "The lawsuit is in the early stages and, at thistime, no assessment can be made as to its likely outcome or whetherthe outcome will be material to the Company."

Recro Pharma, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, engages indeveloping non-opioid products for the treatment of acute painprimarily in the United States. The company was formerly known asRecro Pharma I, Inc. and changed its name to Recro Pharma, Inc. inAugust 2008. Recro Pharma, Inc. was founded in 2007 and is based inMalvern, Pennsylvania.

This action arises out of Plaintiffs' alleged purchases of avirtual currency, XRP, on a described "cryptocurrency exchange."The Plaintiffs do not allege that they lacked information about thenature of these transactions. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs claim thatthey were somehow injured because Defendants were allegedlyrequired to register XRP as a "security" with the Securities &Exchange Commission but failed to do so.[BN]

ROADRUNNER TRANS: Time to Reply Extended in Wisconsin Class Suit----------------------------------------------------------------Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-QReport filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onNovember 7, 2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30,2018, that defendants' time to file their reply in the caseentitled, In re Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. SecuritiesLitigation (Case No. 17-cv-00144), has been extended pending theparties' mediation, which is ongoing.

Following the Company's press release on January 30, 2017, threeputative class actions were filed in the United States DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of Wisconsin against the Company andits former officers, Mark A. DiBlasi and Peter R. Armbruster. OnMay 19, 2017, the Court consolidated the actions under the captionIn re Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation(Case No. 17-cv-00144), and appointed Public Employees' RetirementSystem as lead plaintiff.

On March 12, 2018, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated AmendedComplaint ("CAC") on behalf of a class of persons who purchased theCompany's common stock between March 14, 2013 and January 30, 2017,inclusive. The CAC alleges (i) the Company and Messrs. DiBlasi andArmbruster violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule10b-5, and (ii) Messrs. DiBlasi and Armbruster, the Company'sformer Chairman Scott Rued, HCI Equity Partners, L.L.C., and HCIEquity Management, L.P. violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,by making or causing to be made materially false or misleadingstatements, or failing to disclose material facts, regarding (a)the accuracy of the Company's financial statements; (b) theCompany's true earnings and expenses; (c) the effectiveness of theCompany's disclosure controls and controls over financialreporting; (d) the true nature and depth of financial riskassociated with the Company's tractor lease guaranty program; (e)the Company's leverage ratios and compliance with its creditfacilities; and (f) the value of the goodwill the Company carriedon its balance sheet. The CAC seeks certification as a classaction, compensatory damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

On July 23, 2018, the Company and the individual defendants filedmotions to dismiss to which Plaintiff responded on September 21,2018. Defendants time to file their reply has been extended pendingthe parties' mediation, which is ongoing.

Robert Bosch GmbH provides technology and services worldwide. Itoperates through Mobility Solutions, Industrial Technology,Consumer Goods, and Energy and Building Technology segments. Thecompany was formerly known as Workshop for Precision Mechanics andElectrical Engineering and changed its name to Robert Bosch GmbH in1937. Robert Bosch GmbH was founded in 1886 and is headquartered inStuttgart, Germany. Robert Bosch GmbH is a subsidiary of RobertBosch Stiftung Gmbh. [BN]

ROLAND FOOD: Octopus Products Contain Squid, Fonseca Claims-----------------------------------------------------------LUIS DIEGO ZAPATA FONSECA, individually, and on behalf of all othersimilarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. ROLAND FOOD, LLC, a New Yorklimited liability company, and ORBE, S.A., a foreign corporation,the Defendants, Case 1:18-cv-10259 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2018), seeksactual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, restitution,disgorgement, injunctive relief, and all other available remediesand relief against Defendants, for their unlawful distribution,sales, marketing, and advertising of a Product as being Octopuswhen it is really Squid, pursuant to the New York General Business Law and General Business Law.

According to the complaint, the case is a consumer protection classaction based on Defendants' co-dependent and conspiratorial schemein importing, marketing, advertising, labeling, packaging,distributing, and selling ROLAND canned Octopus. The Product issold based on false, deceptive, unfair, and/or misleadingaffirmative representations and omissions that are likely tomislead reasonable consumers who purchased the Product, likePlaintiff and members of the proposed Class. The Product is notOctopus -- it is actually Squid (also known giant squid orDosidicus gigas).

The Product's uniform misrepresentations and omissions deceive andmislead reasonable consumers to believe that the Product isOctopus, when in reality, it is Squid, which is cheaper, lowerquality and more abundant than Octopus. Octopus is a rarer and morehighly sought-after food delicacy than Giant Squid. As thesupplier, packager, and importer of the Squid, Orbe knows or shouldknow that it is not Octopus. As the distributor of the Squid,ROLAND knows or should know that it is not Octopus. However,despite this, Defendants jointly caused the Squid to be imported,supplied, and marketed to United States consumers as Octopus.Defendants both profit far more by selling cheap Squid as Octopus,to the detriment of reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff andmembers of the Class, the lawsuit says.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants asa regular worker at the shop from November 1, 2017 through November12, 2018. The Defendants allegedly have employed several othersimilarly situated employees, like Plaintiff, who have not beenpaid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of40 hours weekly from the filing of this complaint backthree years.[BN]

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on October8, 2018, pursuant to which Rowan Companies plc will be acquired byEnsco plc. On October 7, 2018, Rowan's Board of Directors causedthe Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger withEnsco. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Rowan'sshareholders will receive 2.215 shares of Ensco Class A commonstock for each share of Rowan stock they own. On October 30, 2018,the Defendants filed a proxy statement with the United StatesSecurities and Exchange Commission in connection with the ProposedTransaction.

The Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to theProposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false andmisleading. Accordingly, plaintiff alleges herein that defendantsviolated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 in connection with the Proxy Statement, the lawsuit says.[BN]

RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Faces Suit over 36% Drop in Share Price---------------------------------------------------------CITY OF BIRMINGHAM FIREMEN'S AND POLICEMEN'S SUPPLEMENTAL PENSIONSYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, Plaintiff v. RYANAIR HOLDINGS PLC; and MICHAEL O'LEARY,Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-10330 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 6, 2018) is aclass action on behalf of all purchasers of Ryanair AmericanDepositary Shares ("ADSs") between May 30, 2017 and September 28,2018, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Actof 1934.

According to the complaint, on September 14, 2017, it was reportedthat Ryanair had lost a key ruling in the European Court of Justice("ECJ") that cast doubt on the legality of the Company's use ofIrish employment contracts to evade local labor laws throughoutEurope. The next day, Ryanair announced that it would need tocancel up to 50 flights a day for the next six weeks due to pilot"scheduling" issues, impacting some 315,000 customers. Soonthereafter, reports began to circulate that the disruption was notdue to scheduling issues as the Company had claimed, but rather towidespread defections by disgruntled employees.

Then, in a stunning reversal, the Company conceded its need torecognize unions in December 2017. However, Ryanair continued todownplay the extent of the labor unrest and conceal the expectedimpact to the Company's operations and financial results. Forexample, on May 21, 2018, Ryanair stated that it remained the"employer of choice" for aviation workers in Europe and that itsfiscal 2019 profits would fall within a range of "EUR1.25bn toEUR1.35bn." However, in the summer of 2018, discontent amongRyanair's workers continued to spill out into the open, belyingdefendants' public claims regarding improved labor relations.Workers in Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Portugal, Italy, the UnitedKingdom, the Netherlands and Ireland were forced into threateningcollective action. The resulting flight cancellations damaged theCompany's brand and forced it to pay millions in compensation costsor to re-route fliers.

Then, on July 23, 2018, Ryanair disclosed a 20% decrease inquarterly profits, due in part to a 34% increase in staff costs.Shortly thereafter, on October 1, 2018, the Company revealed thatit could not meet its annual profit guidance due to the lost faresand ballooning costs related to the strikes and flightcancellations. By market close on October 1, 2018, the price ofRyanair ADSs had fallen to $80.93 per ADS, 36% below the ClassPeriod high of more than $126 per ADS.

Ryanair Holdings plc, together with its subsidiaries, providesscheduled-passenger airline services in Ireland, the UnitedKingdom, and Other European countries. Ryanair Holdings plc wasfounded in 1985 and is headquartered in Swords, Ireland. [BN]

According to the complaint, in no case has Scholastic securedsanctions against an opponent for bringing a frivolous claim ofcopyright infringement. It is implausible that a wholly innocentpublisher would be subjected to numerous frivolous photoinfringement lawsuits without sanctions being imposed, the lawsuitsays.[BN]

The parties' deadline to file the Motion for Preliminary Approvalof Class Action Settlement is December 17, 2018. The deadline tofile any opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Approval isDecember 31, 2018. The deadline to file any reply in support ofthe Motion for Preliminary Approval is January 7, 2018.

The hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Approval is set forJanuary 28, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. Any stipulation requestingconsolidation of this matter with any other must be filed no laterthan December 17, 2018.

Judge Wright also ruled that all other pending deadlines andmotions are vacated, including the Plaintiff's Motion to CertifyClass, which is denied as moot pursuant to the Parties' JointStatus Report.[CC]

SCYNEXIS INC: Gibson Class Action Dismissed-------------------------------------------Scynexis, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the stockholderclass action lawsuit entitled, Gibson v. Scynexis, Inc., et al.,has been dismissed.

On March 8, 2017, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit wasfiled in the United States District Court for the District of NewJersey against the Company and certain of its current and formerofficers, captioned Gibson v. Scynexis, Inc., et al.

On October 26, 2018, the class action lawsuit was dismissed.

Scynexis, Inc., a drug development company, develops andcommercializes anti-infectives to address unmet therapeutic needs.The company was formerly known as ScynexisChemistry & Automation,Inc. and changed its name to Scynexis, Inc. in June 2002. Scynexis,Inc. was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Jersey City, NewJersey.

SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Hall Plaintiffs Agree Not to Appeal-----------------------------------------------------------SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that plaintiffsin Holly Hall v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. have agreed not toappeal any further in exchange for the Company's agreement to waiveany potential entitlement to costs.

On March 25, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the UnitedStates District Court for the Southern District of Californiaagainst the Company, captioned Holly Hall v. SeaWorldEntertainment, Inc., (the "Hall Matter"). The complaint identifiesthree putative classes consisting of all consumers nationwide whoat any time during the four-year period preceding the filing of theoriginal complaint, purchased an admission ticket, a membership ora SeaWorld "experience" that includes an "orca experience" from theSeaWorld amusement park in San Diego, California, Orlando, Floridaor San Antonio, Texas respectively.

Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the Companymisrepresented the physical living conditions and care andtreatment of its orcas, resulting in confusion or misunderstandingamong ticket purchasers, and omitted material facts regarding itsorcas with intent to deceive and mislead the plaintiff andpurported class members. The complaint further alleges that thespecific misrepresentations heard and relied upon by Holly Hall inpurchasing her SeaWorld tickets concerned the circumstancessurrounding the death of a SeaWorld trainer. The complaint seeksactual damages, equitable relief, attorney's fees and costs.

Plaintiffs claim that the amount in controversy exceeds $5.0million, but the liability exposure is speculative until the sizeof the class is determined (if certification is granted at all). Inaddition, four other purported class actions were filed against theCompany and its affiliates. Such actions were subsequentlydismissed or consolidated with the Hall Matter described above.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the entirety of theplaintiffs' Second Consolidated Amended Complaint ("SAC") withprejudice on February 25, 2016. The Court granted the Company"smotion to dismiss the entire SAC with prejudice and enteredjudgment for the Company on May 13, 2016. Plaintiffs filed anappeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit which issued an order affirming the dismissal of thePlaintiff's case.

The plaintiffs have agreed not to appeal any further in exchangefor the Company's agreement to waive any potential entitlement tocosts.

SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries,operates as a theme park and entertainment company in the UnitedStates. The company operates marine-life theme park under theSeaWorld brand in San Diego, Orlando, and San Antonio; BuschGardens theme parks, which are family-oriented destinations withforeign geographic settings in Tampa and Williamsburg; and waterparks under the Aquatica brand name in Orlando, San Antonio, andSan Diego. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1959 and isheadquartered in Orlando, Florida.

The Defendant sent Mr. Snow an initial form collection letter,dated July 14, 2018, demanding payment of a defaulted consumer debtowed to Comcast. Nowhere in Defendant's letter did it state that itwas a debt collector and that information it obtains could be usedagainst Mr. Snow.

The Defendant's conflicting collection demands – directingPlaintiff to call immediately to arrange payment – confusedPlaintiff about how long he had to dispute the debt and seekvalidation of it. Defendant's letter also failed to informPlaintiff as to the nature of Focus' business, and that Defendantcould use anything he provided to it against him. Moreover,Defendant's letter confused Plaintiff as to what "importantinformation" Defendant had failed to provide him on the blankreverse side of the letter. All of this information is materialinformation that would play a role in Mr. Snow's, as well as anyother consumer's, decision-making process about what to do aboutthe collection of the debt at issue, says the complaint.

Plaintiff, Joe Snow is a citizen of the State of Indiana, residingin the Southern District of Indiana, from whom Defendant attemptedto collect a defaulted consumer debt, which he allegedly owed toComcast.

Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC, f/k/a Focus Receivables Management,LLC is a Georgia limited liability company that acts as a debtcollector, as defined by the FDCPA, because it regularly uses themails and/or telephone to collect, or attempt to collect, defaultedconsumer debts. Focus operates a nationwide defaulted debtcollection business, and attempts to collect debts from consumersin the State of Indiana.[BN]

According to the complaint, Sentry is sold as a flea and tickrepellent that is "safe to use around children and pets." In fact,the essential oils that make up the Sentry Products are toxic ifingested or applied directly to the skin and can lead to seriouscomplications. Every Sentry Product represents that it is "safe touse around children and pets" and is "Veterinarian Tested."

Unfortunately for consumers and their pets, use of the Productsexposes pets to the following concentrated essential oils that arepresent in every Sentry Product: peppermint oil, cinnamon oil,lemongrass oil, clove oil, and thyme oil. These essential oils,despite being natural, can be toxic if absorbed through the skin oringested by pets. Symptoms of essential oil poisoning includeirritation to the skin, vomiting, muscles tremors, and other moreserious complications that can lead to organ failure and death.Despite these risks, consumers are directed to apply the SentryProducts directly to the skin of their pets, the lawsuit says.

SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: Still Defends Patton Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------ServiceSource International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7,2018, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that thecompany continues to defend itself from a class action lawsuitentitled, Sarah Patton, et al v. ServiceSource Delaware, Inc.

On August 23, 2016, the United States District Court for the MiddleDistrict of Tennessee granted conditional class certification in alawsuit originally filed on September 21, 2015 by three formersenior sales representatives.

The lawsuit, Sarah Patton, et al v. ServiceSource Delaware, Inc.,asserts a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act alleging thatcertain non-exempt employees in the company's Nashville locationwere not paid for all hours worked and were not properly paid forovertime hours worked. The complaint also asserts claims underTennessee state law for breach of contract and unjust enrichment;and on September 28, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certifythe state law breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims as aclass action.

ServiceSource International said, "The Company will continue toseek to conclude this lawsuit in a manner that is in the bestinterest of the Company and its stockholders."

ServiceSource International, Inc. provides recurring revenuemanagement, maintenance, support, and subscription for technologyand technology-enabled healthcare and life sciences companies. ServiceSource International, Inc. was founded in 2002 and isheadquartered in Denver, Colorado.

According to the complaint, the Defendants intentionally failed toprovide notice to employees in violation of New York Labor Law,which requires all employers to provide written notice in theemployee's primary language about the terms and conditions ofemployment related to rate of pay, regular pay cycle and rate ofovertime on her or her first day of employment. The Defendants notonly did not provide notice to each employee at Time of Hire, butfailed to provide notice to each Plaintiff even after the fact. Dueto Defendants' violations of New York Labor Law, each Plaintiff isentitled to recover from Defendants, jointly and severally, $50 foreach workday that the violation occurred or continued to occur, upto $5,000, together with costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to NewYork Labor Law. N.Y. Lab. Law section 198(1-b), the lawsuit says.

Defendants operate several general contracting companies thatprovide commercial and residential construction services throughoutNew York State and operate under a common trade name "SH-GC"located at 460 East 115 th Street, Ste. 3R, New York, NY10029.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a former employee ofDefendant where she worked as a Chef, During the course of heremployment, the Plaintiff was misclassified as an exempt employee,and also regular worked more than 40 hours per week, but was notproperly compensated for her work and/or was not paid overtimecompensation by the FLSA/PMWA.

The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant violated the Americanwith Disabilities Act, by failing to engage in an interactiveprocess of determining a reasonable accommodation for hisdisability, the lawsuit says.[BN]

SHUTTERFLY INC: Suit v. Directors of Lifetouch, Inc. Dismissed--------------------------------------------------------------Shutterfly, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission filed on November 13, 2018,2018, that the purported class action suit against the directors ofLifetouch, Inc. (which became a direct wholly-owned subsidiary ofShutterfly on April 2, 2018) and the trustee of the LifetouchEmployee Stock Ownership Plan (the "ESOP") in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Minnesota, has been dismissed withprejudice.

On March 1, 2018, a purported class action complaint was filedagainst several directors of Lifetouch, Inc. (which became a directwholly-owned subsidiary of Shutterfly on April 2, 2018) and thetrustee of the Lifetouch Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "ESOP")in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On April 2, 2018, the complaint was amended to include the priorESOP trustees and plan sponsor (Lifetouch) as additional nameddefendants. The complaint alleged violations of the EmployeeRetirement Income Security Act, including that the ESOP should nothave been permitted to continue investing in Lifetouch stock duringa period in which the Lifetouch stock price was declining.

The plaintiffs sought recovery for damages arising from the allegedbreaches of fiduciary duty.

On November 7, 2018, the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.

Shutterfly, Inc. manufactures and retails personalized products andservices primarily in the United States, Canada, and the EuropeanCommunity. The company operates through Consumer and ShutterflyBusiness Solutions segments. The company was founded in 1999 and isheadquartered in Redwood City, California.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendantsfabricated the purported value of the untraded Class C CommonStock, ignoring Dell's own internal valuation of $33.17 per sharein December 2017 and inflating it to the ridiculous $80 per shareneeded to even arguably justify this deal in July 2018. At the sametime, Michael Dell's heavy-handedness and private and publicthreats as a controller increased the divergence between thetrading prices of Class V and ordinary VMware, Inc.'s common stock.This manufactured discount alone accounts for approximately $10billion, nearly 80% of which Michael Dell and Silver Lake willcapture.

Before seeking to impose the unfair deal, Michael Dell and SilverLake tried to buy VMware outright, using Dell equity to finance thedeal. To evaluate a potential Dell/VMware deal, VMware formed acommittee of directors independent from Michael Dell and SilverLake (the "VMware Special Committee"). The VMware Special Committeerejected Michael Dell's and Silver Lake's inflated valuations forCore Dell's stock and demanded a premium above the trading price ofVMware common stock (which was already 35% higher than the ClassV). With Michael Dell and Silver Lake unwilling to pay a fairamount, negotiations broke down.

Michael Dell and Silver Lake turned to a path of less (i.e., noreal) resistance: the Proposed Transaction. Michael Dell and SilverLake "negotiated" the Proposed Transaction with a special committee(the "Dell Special Committee") consisting of two members: one(Dorman) who was affiliated with the investment bank that hadhelped them take Dell private (Centerview Partners) and the other(Green) who derives a material portion of his income fromDell-controlled entities. Beyond their lack of personalindependence from Michael Dell and Silver Lake, the Dell SpecialCommittee had an inherent and incurable conflict. As Delldirectors, Dorman and Green owed fiduciary duties to Dell'sstockholders (i.e., effectively Michael Dell, Silver Lake, andsenior employees who do their bidding). Dorman and Green could notconceivably negotiate against Dell's "Core Dell" stockholders andfor Class V stockholders. Their loyalties were, by definition,divided. Since the teachings of MFW cannot apply where – as here– a "Special Committee" labors, under inherently dividedloyalties, the entire fairness standard applies ab initio.

To overcome any resistance the Dell Special Committee mightotherwise offer, Michael Dell and Silver Lake resorted to outrightcoercion. Michael Dell/Silver Lake privately threatened that if theDell Special Committee did not approve the Proposed Transaction,Michael Dell/Silver Lake would launch an IPO of Dell's Class CStock, and thereafter forcibly convert the Class V stock into ClassC stock.

Now facing the exact opposition from Class V stockholders that theypredicted would take place all along, Michael Dell/Silver Lake haveresorted to the same coercive threats to compel the Class Vstockholders to approve the Proposed Transaction (or a slightlymodified version) at grossly unfair prices. These threats have beenmade in a variety of media, with some delivered privately inone-on-one meetings with major stockholders, and others deliveredpublicly and cynically ouched as "informing" stockholders of the"contingencies" and steps Michael Dell/Silver Lake will pursue (andDell's Board is supporting and will support) if Michael Dell/SilverLake do not compel stockholder approval of the ProposedTransaction. In other words, Michael Dell/Silver Lake havethreatened retribution to place a heavy "thumb on the scales" ofstockholder voting, and whether it is this deal or a modestlyimproved deal, that "thumb" undermines any judicial confidence thatcan be placed on the vote itself.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and the Ohio Acts ClassMembers worked more than 40 hours in workweeks, however, SmythAutomotive violated the Ohio Acts by failing to pay Plaintiffs andother Ohio Acts Class Members any overtime premium for hours workedover 40 per week. The Plaintiffs and the Ohio Acts Class Memberswere not paid all wages, including overtime wages at one andone-half times their regular rates within 30 days of performing thework. The wages of Plaintiffs and the Ohio Acts Class Membersremain unpaid for more than 30 days beyond their regularlyscheduled payda, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities thatpurchased or otherwise acquired Stitch Fix securities between June8, 2018 and October 1, 2018, inclusive. Stitch Fix purports to bean online retail fashion subscription service. It providespersonalized shipments of apparel, shoes, and accessories toclients. Each shipment is called a "Fix." For each Fix, the Companycharges clients a styling fee that is credited toward items theypurchase. On October 1, 2018, after the close of trading, theCompany reported its financial results for fourth quarter 2018,revealing only 54,000 net active client additions, a decline from180,000 net additions in the prior quarter.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $15.69 per share, morethan 35%, to close at $31.58 per share on October 2, 2018, onunusually high trading volume. The Defendants made materially falseand/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclosematerial adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose toinvestors: (1) that the Company's active client growth rate wasslowing; (2) that Company would cease its television advertisingfor a significant part of the quarter; (3) that the lack oftelevision advertising would materially impact the Company's activeclient additions; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lackeda reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts andomissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of theCompany's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members havesuffered significant losses and damages, the lawsuit says.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Defendant is a retail businessoperating as Cuban restaurant and supermarket. The Defendant alsosells alcoholic beverages. The Plaintiff is employed as adishwasher and restaurant/supermarket employee from approximatelyJuly 13, 2017, through August 26, 2018, or 6 weeks. The Plaintiffwas a non-exempted, full-time, hourly employee. During the relevantemployment period, Plaintiff's regular wage rate was $8.25 and$9.25 an hour. While employed by Defendants Plaintiff had a regularschedule. The first 3 weeks of employment Plaintiff was paid at$8.25 an hour, Plaintiff worked 7 days per week. The Plaintiffcompleted 76 hours in a week period. The Plaintiff worked 1 week of76 hours and he was paid at $9.25 an hour. The last 2 weeks ofemployment, Plaintiff worked 6 days per week the same schedule.Plaintiff had Mondays off and he worked a total of 65.5 hours perweek. During all his weeks of employment Plaintiff was unable totake bona-fide lunch periods.

The Plaintiff was paid for all his hours, but at his regularwage-rate. The Defendant did not compensate Plaintiff for overtimehours. Therefore, Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiffovertime hours at the rate of time and one-half his regular ratefor every hour that he worked in excess of 40. The Defendant didnot maintain a time keeping method, Plaintiff did not clock in andout. Plaintiff was paid strictly in cash, without any paystubproviding information about days and hours worked, wage-rate paid,employment taxes withheld etc. The owner of the business Jorge Hoyorefused to provide any evidence of employment, the lawsuitsays.[BN]

SUNTUITY SOLAR: Rogers Sues over Text Message Advertisements------------------------------------------------------------DARRELL ROGERS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, 5124 Clavel Terrace Rockville, MD 20853, the Plaintiff,vs. SUNTUITY SOLAR LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, 2137 NJ-35, Holmdel,NJ 07733, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02659 (D. Colo, Nov. 17,2018), alleges that Defendant violated the Telephone ConsumerProtection Act and implementing regulations by using an automatictelephone dialing system when it sent Plaintiff and the putativeclass members text message advertisements in order to promote itssolar energy business without obtaining Prior Express WrittenConsent.

According to the complaint, by sending text message advertisementsto Plaintiff and the putative class members without their PriorExpress Written Consent, Defendant invaded the privacy rights andright to seclusion of Plaintiff and the putative class members.Plaintiff, Darrell Rogers, on behalf of a class of personssimilarly situated, seeks statutory damages for each violation, thelawsuit says.[BN]

Sykes Enterprises, Incorporated, together with its subsidiaries,provides multichannel demand generation and global customerengagement services. Sykes Enterprises, Incorporated was founded in1977 and is headquartered in Tampa, Florida. [BN]

TARGET MARKETING: Showe-Gai Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls--------------------------------------------------------------VICTORIA SHOWE-GAI, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs. TARGET MARKETING INC. d/b/aLIQUID EDUCATION, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each ofthem, Case No. 2:18-cv-09680 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 16, 2018), seeksdamages and any other available legal or equitable remediesresulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently,knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff'scellular telephone in violation of the Telephone ConsumerProtection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy and causinghim to incur unnecessary and unwanted expenses.

According to the complaint, beginning in or around July of 2017,Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephonenumber ending in -1014, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff topurchase Defendant's services. Defendant used an "automatictelephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1)to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. TheDefendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff fromtelephone numbers confirmed to belong to Defendant, includingwithout limitation (619) 369-19 4109.

Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergencypurposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). TheDefendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to acellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge forincoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1). The Defendantdid not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receivecalls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificialor prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47U.S.C. section 28 227(b)(1)(A). Such calls constitute solicitationcalls pursuant to 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(c)(2) as they wereattempts to promote or sell Defendant's services, the lawsuitsays.[BN]

TECHPRECISION CORP: Suit Against Ranor, Inc. Ongoing----------------------------------------------------TechPrecision Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, forthe quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that Ranor, Inc.continues to defend itself from a putative class action suit filedin the Massachusetts Superior Court, Worcester County.

On or about February 26, 2016, nine former employees, or plantiffs,of Ranor, Inc. (Ranor) filed a complaint in the MassachusettsSuperior Court, Worcester County, against Ranor and certain formerand current executive officers of Ranor, alleging violations of theMassachusetts Wage Act, breach of contract and conversion based ona modification made to Ranor's personal time off policy.

Plaintiffs claim that Ranor's modification to its personal timeoff, or PTO, policy in April 2014 caused these employees to forfeitearned PTO. Plaintiffs purport to assert their claims on behalf ofa class of all current and former employees of Ranor who wereaffected by the modification to Ranor's PTO policy.

On August 30, 2018, a class certification hearing was conductedwhere the Plantiffs' motion for class certification was grantedwithout opposition.

On October 23, 2018, the pre-trial discovery phase ended, but theparties have requested a 6-month extension. The court has not yetacted on that request. No trial date has been set.

TechPrecision Corporation, through its subsidiaries, manufacturesand sells precision, large-scale fabricated, and machined metalcomponents and systems in the United States and the People'sRepublic of China. The Company was founded in 1956 and isheadquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania.

In recent years consumers have become increasingly dependent onportable electronic devices like smart phones, tablets and laptopcomputers (PED). PEDs have made it convenient for consumers toconstantly stay in communication with colleagues, friends, andloved ones, and to immediately access information. However, likeany electronic device, PEDs require power and their internalbatteries must be periodically recharged. To address the needs ofconsumers to use PEDs during travel, or when the consumer otherwiselacks access to an electrical outlet, the portable charger industryemerged. A portable charger, often called a power bank, is a small,portable power source consumers can use to recharge their PEDsduring travel. The greater the capacity of the Power Bank, as isexpressed in milliampere-hours, the more times the Power Bank canbe used to recharge PEDs before the Power Bank must be rechargeditself. Thus, consumers prefer and are willing to pay a premium forPower Banks with higher mAh ratings.

Topstar manufactures, markets, and distributes for sale nationwideto consumers a number of Power Banks under the GETIHU label. Itdoes so by prominently representing the Products' capacities asmeasured in mAh. Unfortunately for consumers, testing has shown theProducts' actual capacity is substantially lower than what Topstarrepresents. By deceiving consumers about the Products' capacity,Topstar is 24 able to sell more of, and charge more for, theProducts than it could if they were labeled accurately. Further,Topstar is incentivized to mislead consumers to take away marketshare from competing products, thereby increasing its own sales andprofits, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarlysituated, filed a complaint against defendants for securities fraudin violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities andExchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and 17C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 (Rule 10b-5) .

The court finds that the case posture was appropriate in that theplaintiffs coordinated their claims and pleadings and the partiesengaged in good-faith, arm's length negotiation. The record issufficiently developed to enable the parties to evaluate theirpositions adequately, especially because this litigation began in2012. Counsel for all parties are reputable and experienced, andthey believe that the settlement is fair to all parties afterextensive investigation and litigation. Moreover, the partiesparticipated in extensive settlement negotiations, includingmediation. Finally, there is no evidence of collusion.Accordingly, the court finds that the settlement is fair.

The defendants or defendants's insurance carrier will pay$3,250,000.00 into the settlement fund less any attorneys' fees,costs, and incentive awards, and less any sums already advancedafter the court's preliminary approval of settlement. Up to$250,000 of the settlement fund will go towards notice andadministrative costs, and any further costs will require a courtorder. Class counsel will request an award of attorneys' fees notto exceed $975,000-30% of the settlement amount and up to $75,000in out-of-pocket litigation expenses, as well as $3,000 tocompensate the lead plaintiff for his reasonable costs andexpenses.

Upon the Effective Date, the Defendants, and the heirs,representatives, attorneys, affiliates, executors, trustees,administrators, predecessors, successors, and assigns of each ofthem, in their capacity as such, shall be deemed to have, and byoperation of the court's judgment shall have, fully, finally, andforever waived, released, relinquished, discharged, and dismissedeach and every one of the Released Defendants's Claims against eachand every one of the Released Plaintiff Parties and shall foreverbe barred and enjoined from the assertion, institution,maintenance, prosecution, or enforcement in any state or federalcourt or arbitral forum, or in the court of any foreignjurisdiction, administrative forum or other forum of any kind, ofany and all of the Released Defendants' Claims against any and allof the Released Plaintiff Parties.

Lead counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $975,000,and out-of-pocket litigation expenses in the amount of $49,242.65,plus any applicable interest. Such amounts shall be paid from theSettlement Fund within ten business days following the entry ofthis order. Lead counsel shall thereafter be solely responsible forallocating the attorneys' fees and expenses among other plaintiffs'counsel in a manner that lead counsel, in good faith, believesreflects the contributions of such counsel to the initiation,prosecution, and resolution of the action.

In the event that the court's judgment does not become final, andany portion of the Fee and Expense Award has already been paid fromthe Settlement Fund, lead counsel, and all other plaintiffs'counsel to whom lead counsel has distributed payments, shall refundthe Fee and Expense Award to the Settlement Fund pursuant to thestipulation within ten business days of entry of the orderrendering the settlement and judgment non-final, giving notice ofthe settlement being terminated, or precluding the Effective Datefrom occurring.

Lead plaintiff is awarded the sum of $3,000 as reasonable costs andexpenses directly relating to the representation of the SettlementClass as provided in 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(4), such amounts tobe paid from the Settlement Fund upon the Effective Date of thesettlement.

The Court finds that the proposed Plan of Allocation is a fair andreasonable method to allocate the Net Settlement Fund among theSettlement Class Members.

The court grants the plaintiffs' motions for final approval of theclass action settlement and for an award of attorneys' fees,reimbursement of expenses, and a compensatory award to leadplaintiff.

A full-text copy of the District Court's November 19, 2018 Order isavailable at https://tinyurl.com/y8m83qow from Leagle.com.

According to the complaint, the case is a securities class actionon behalf of all purchasers of Trevena common stock between May 2,2016 and October 9, 2018, inclusive. The Company's most advanceddrug under development was Olinvo (a/k/a Oliceridine and TRV130),an intravenous pain reliever which was undergoing a Phase IIIclinical trial for the treatment of moderate-to-severepostoperative pain after surgery. According to Trevena, its PhaseII clinical trial for Olinvo had demonstrated that Olinvo wassuperior to the then-standard of care for post-surgery painreduction, morphine. Trevena also claimed that once approved forcommercial distribution, it planned to price Olinvo higher thanmorphine, because Olinvo purportedly caused less costly adverseeffects than morphine, such as respiratory problems, nausea andvomiting.

Unbeknownst to investors, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration("FDA") had expressly warned Trevena, however, prior to the startof the Class Period, of many defects in the design of its Phase IIIclinical trial -- design defects Trevena refused to remedy -- thatthreatened to render the data derived in the Phase III clinicaltrial worthless. As a result, the Company's prospects of obtainingFDA approval for commercial distribution of Olinvo, and itseventual commercial successes, were much lower than defendants wereleading the market to believe throughout the Class Period. Based onDefendants' Class Period materially misleading statements andomissions concerning the strength of its clinical developmentprogram, the design of its Phase III Olinvo clinical trial and itsprospects for obtaining FDA approval to commercially distributeOlinvo and the drug’s financial prospects, the price of Trevenacommon stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout theClass Period, trading above $8 per share on May 10, 2016.

When the Company disclosed the results of the Phase III clinicaltrial of Olinvo on February 21, 2017, the data did not show thatOlinvo caused any meaningfully less adverse effects than morphine.On this news, the price of Trevena common stock plummetedapproximately 40%, or $3 per share, on February 21, 2017, onunusually heavy trading of more than 10.5 million shares trading.Then, on October 9, 2018, the FDA made public its prior criticismsof the design of the Phase III clinical trial and disclosed thatits Advisory Committee was recommending that the FDA reject theCompany’s New Drug Application for Olinvo. On this news, theprice of Trevena common stock plummeted another 64%, almost $2 pershare, on October 9, 2018, again on unusually high trading of morethan 40 million shares trading. On October 11, 2018, trading inTrevena common stock was halted on pending news. Later that day,the Company disclosed that the FDA Advisory Committee had votedagainst approving Olinvo. While Trevena contended that the FDA[was] not bound by the Advisory Committee's recommendations thatday, it also acknowledged that the FDA "takes its advice intoconsideration when making its decision." When trading recommencedon October 12, 2018, the stock price dropped another 7%, closingbelow $1 per share, on unusually high trading of more than 12million shares. Finally, on Friday November 2, 2018, Trevenadisclosed that the FDA had formally rejected its NDA for Olinvo,with the FDA stating in its complete response letter that thesafety data was not adequate, the lawsuit says.

TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Merger-Related Suits Voluntarily Dismissed----------------------------------------------------------------Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 7, 2018,for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that allmerger-related suits have been voluntarily dismissed.

On June 20, 2018, the Defendants and Disney issued a joint pressrelease announcing they had entered into an Amended and RestatedAgreement and Plan of Merger. Under the terms of the MergerAgreement, stockholders of the Defendants will receive $38 pershare, with the election to receive their consideration, on a valueequalized basis, in the form of cash or stock, subject to 50/50proration and further subject to adjustment for certain taxliabilities. The Proposed Transaction is valued at $71.3 billion incash and stock. Following the completion of the ProposedTransaction, assuming the tax adjustment amount is zero, theDefendants' stockholders will own approximately 17-20% and Disneystockholders will own approximately 80% to 83% of the combinedcompany.

On July 9, 2018, the Company received notice of a complaint filedJuly 6, 2018 by Robert Weiss, a purported stockholder of theCompany, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,against the Company and the Company's Board of Directors. Thepurported class action lawsuit was filed in the District ofDelaware and is captioned Weiss v. Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc.et al., No. 18-1007 (D. Del.).

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and theCompany's Board of Directors violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) ofthe Exchange Act, 15.U.S.C. Sections 78n(a), 78t(a), and SEC Rule14a-9, 17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9. Specifically, Mr. Weiss alleges thatmaterial information concerning various aspects of the transactionshas been omitted or misrepresented.

On July 11, 2018, purported Company stockholder Robert Lowinger, onbehalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed acomplaint in the Southern District of New York alleging, amongother things, that the Company and the Company's Board of Directorsviolated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15.U.S.C.Sections 78n(a), 78t(a), and SEC Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9.The case is captioned Lowinger v. Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. etal., No. 18-6261 (S.D.N.Y.). Specifically, Mr. Lowinger allegesthat material information concerning various aspects of thetransactions has been omitted or misrepresented.

On July 17, 2018 purported Company stockholder Belle Cohen,individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, fileda complaint in the Southern District of New York captioned Cohen v.Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. et al., No. 18-6462 (S.D.N.Y.). Thecomplaint alleges, among other things, that the Company and theCompany board violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the ExchangeAct, 15.U.S.C. Sections 78n(a), 78t(a), and SEC Rule 14a-9, 17C.F.R. 240.14a-9 by omitting or misrepresenting materialinformation concerning various aspects of the transactions.

Through these actions, the plaintiffs sought to enjoin the July 27,2018 special meeting of the Company's stockholders. As of October17, 2018, all of the actions have been voluntarily dismissed.

Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. operates as a diversified media andentertainment company primarily in the United States and Canada,Europe, and internationally. It operates through Cable NetworkProgramming, Television, and Filmed Entertainment segments. Thecompany was formerly known as News Corporation. Twenty-FirstCentury Fox, Inc. was founded in 1922 and is headquartered in NewYork, New York.

TYSON FOODS: Bid to Drop Broiler Chicken Grower Suit Still Pending------------------------------------------------------------------Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for thefiscal year ended September 29, 2018, that the defendants' motionto dismiss the class action suit entitled, In re Broiler ChickenGrower Litigation, is still pending.

On January 27, 2017, Haff Poultry, Inc., Craig Watts, JohnnyUpchurch, Jonathan Walters and Brad Carr, acting on behalf ofthemselves and a putative class of broiler chicken farmers, filed aclass action complaint against the company and certain of itspoultry subsidiaries, as well as several othervertically-integrated poultry processing companies, in the UnitedStates District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

On March 27, 2017, a second class action complaint making similarclaims on behalf of a similarly defined putative class was filed inthe United States District Court for the Eastern District ofOklahoma.

Plaintiffs in the two cases sought to have the mattersconsolidated, and, on July 10, 2017, filed a consolidated amendedcomplaint styled In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation. Theplaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants colludednot to compete for broiler raising services "with the purpose andeffect of fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing growercompensation below competitive levels." The plaintiffs also allegethat the defendants "agreed to share detailed data on growercompensation with one another, with the purpose and effect ofartificially depressing grower compensation below competitivelevels."

The plaintiffs contend these alleged acts constitute violations ofthe Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Grain Inspection,Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921. The plaintiffs are seekingtreble damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, andattorneys' fees on behalf of the putative class.

Tyson Foods said, "We and the other defendants filed a motion todismiss on September 8, 2017. That motion is pending."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as afood company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. The company was founded in 1935and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.

TYSON FOODS: Bid to Drop Duryea Class Action Suit Pending---------------------------------------------------------Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for thefiscal year ended September 29, 2018, that the defendants in theclass action suit initiated by. Wanda Duryea and others, filedmotions to dismiss the complaints.

On June 18, 2018, Wanda Duryea, Matthew Hosking, John McKee, LisaMelegari, Michael Reilly, Sandra Steffan, Paul Glantz, EdwinBlakey, Jennifer Sullivan, Lisa Axelrod, Anbessa Tufa and ChristinaHall, acting on behalf of themselves individually and on behalf ofa putative plaintiff class consisting of all persons and entitieswho indirectly purchased pork, filed a class action complaintagainst the company and certain of its pork subsidiaries, as wellas several other pork processing companies, in the federal districtcourt for the District of Minnesota.

Subsequent to the filing of the initial complaint, additionallawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes ofdirect and indirect purchasers were also filed in the same court.The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning inJanuary 2009 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise,maintain, and stabilize the price of pork and pork products inviolation of United States antitrust laws.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirectpurchasers also include causes of action under various state unfaircompetition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichmentcommon laws. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctiverelief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, and attorneys' feeson behalf of the putative classes. The direct purchaser actions andindirect purchaser actions have been consolidated for pretrialpurposes. On October 23, 2018, defendants filed motions to dismissthe complaints.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as afood company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. The company was founded in 1935and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.

TYSON FOODS: Still Defends Broiler Chicken Antitrust Suit---------------------------------------------------------Tyson Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2018, for thefiscal year ended September 29, 2018, that the company continues todefend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re BroilerChicken Antitrust Litigation.

On September 2, 2016, Maplevale Farms, Inc., acting on behalf ofitself and a putative class of direct purchasers of poultryproducts, filed a class action complaint against the company andcertain of its poultry subsidiaries, as well as several otherpoultry processing companies, in the Northern District of Illinois.

Subsequent to the filing of this initial complaint, additionallawsuits making similar claims on behalf of putative classes ofdirect and indirect purchasers were filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The courtconsolidated the complaints, for pre-trial purposes, into actionson behalf of three different putative classes: direct purchasers,indirect purchasers/consumers and commercial/institutional indirectpurchasers.

These three actions are styled In re Broiler Chicken AntitrustLitigation. Several amended and consolidated complaints have beenfiled on behalf of each putative class. The currently operativecomplaints allege, among other things, that beginning in January2008 the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain,and stabilize the price of broiler chickens in violation of UnitedStates antitrust laws.

The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirectpurchasers also include causes of action under various state unfaircompetition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichmentcommon laws. The complaints also allege that defendants"manipulated and artificially inflated a widely used Broiler priceindex, the Georgia Dock." It is further alleged that the defendantsconcealed this conduct from the plaintiffs and the members of theputative classes. The plaintiffs are seeking treble damages,injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs, andattorneys' fees on behalf of the putative classes.

The court issued a ruling on November 20, 2017 denying alldefendants' motions to dismiss. The litigation is currently in adiscovery phase.

Decisions on class certification and summary judgment motionslikely to be filed by defendants are not expected before the latterpart of calendar year 2020 under the scheduling order currentlygoverning the case. Scheduling for trial, if necessary, will occurafter rulings on class certification and any summary judgmentmotions. Certain putative class members have opted out of thismatter and are proceeding separately, and others may do so in thefuture.

Tyson Foods, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as afood company worldwide. It operates through four segments: Beef,Pork, Chicken, and Prepared Foods. The company was founded in 1935and is headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.

U.S. BANK: Guiette Seeks Approval of Settlement-----------------------------------------------In the class action lawsuit captioned Virginia Guiette,individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, thePlaintiff, vs. U.S. Bank National Association, the Defendant, Case:1:18-cv-00174-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks the Court for anorder:

1. conditionally verifying a Settlement Class;

2. preliminarily approving the terms of the settlement agreement;

3. approving proposed notice plan;

4. appointng Rust Consulting as notice administrator;

5. appointing Abbas Kazerounian of Kazerouni Law Group, APC and Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart, APC as lead class counsel; and

6. setting a hearing date for final approval.

The Settlement Class means the persons in the following SubclassOne and Subclass Two.

Subclass One consists of:

"all users or subscribers to a wireless or cellular service within the United States who used or subscribed to a phone number to which U.S. Bank made or initiated one or more Calls in connection with a Residential Mortgage Loan using any automated dialing technology or artificial or prerecorded voice

technology during the Class Period August 7, 2014 through December 31, 2017. Agreement section 2.33. b."; and

Subclass Two Subclass Two consists of:

"all users or subscribers to a wireless or cellular service within the United States who used or subscribed to a phone number to which U.S. Bank made or initiated one or more Calls in connection with a Home Equity Loan using any automated dialing technology or artificial or prerecorded voice technology during the Class Period February 19, 2015 though December 31, 2017. Agreement section 2.3."[CC]

UNIT CORP: Continues to Defend Panola Independent School Class Suit-------------------------------------------------------------------Unit Corp.said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues todefend itself from a class action suit entitled, Panola IndependentSchool District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum Company, No.CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma.

The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that the company'sexploration segment has underpaid royalty obligations by deductingpost-production costs or marketing related fees. Plaintiffs soughtto pursue the case as a class action on behalf of persons whoreceive royalty from the company for the company's Oklahomaproduction.

The company had asserted several defenses including that thedeductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. The company had alsoasserted that the case should not be tried as a class action due tothe materially different circumstances that determine what, if any,deductions are taken for each lease. On December 16, 2009, thetrial court entered its order certifying the class. On May 11, 2012the court of civil appeals reversed the trial court's ordercertifying the class. The

Plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari and onOctober 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied. On January22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a second request to certify a classof royalty owners slightly smaller than their first attempt. Sincethen, the Plaintiffs have further amended their proposed class tojust include royalty owners entitled to royalties under certainleases in Latimer, Le Flore, and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma.

In July 2014, a second class certification hearing was held where,besides the defenses described above, we argued that the amendedclass definition is still deficient under the court of civilappeals opinion reversing the initial class certification. Closingarguments were held on December 2, 2014. There is no timetable forwhen the court will issue its ruling. The merits of Plaintiffs'claims will remain stayed while class certification issues arepending.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Unit Corp. engages in onshore contract drilling of oil and gaswells (for its own account as well as for other companies),exploration and production of oil and gas, and the gathering andtransportation of natural gas primarily in the U.S. It alsoexplores, develops, acquires, and produces oil and natural gas, andbuys, sells, gathers, processes, and treats natural gas. Unit wasfounded in 1963 and is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

According to the complaint, some time prior to December 13, 2017,an obligation was allegedly incurred to Chase Bank U.S.A., N.A. TheChase obligation arose out of a transaction in which money,property, insurance or services, which are the subject of thetransaction, are primarily for personal, family or householdpurposes. The alleged Chase Bank U.S.A., N.A. obligation is a"debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(5). Chase is a"creditor" as defined by 15 U.S.C. section 1692a(4). Chase or asubsequent owner of the Chase debt contracted the Defendant tocollect the alleged debt.

Defendant collects and attempts to collect debts incurred oralleged to have been incurred for personal, family or householdpurposes on behalf of creditors using the United States PostalService, telephone and internet, the lawsuit says.[BN]

UNITED NATURAL: Guerra Suit Moved to Central Dist. of California----------------------------------------------------------------Salvador Guerra, individually and on behalf of other members of thegeneral public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrievedemployees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act,the Plaintiff, vs. United Natural Foods, Inc. an unknown businessentity, United Natural Foods West, Inc., a California corporation,and DOES 1 - 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RIC 1818751,was removed from the Riverside Superior Court, to the the U.S.District Court for the Central District of California (EasternDivision – Riverside) Nov. 8, 2018. The Central District ofCalifornia assigned Case No. 5:18-cv-02382 to the proceeding. Thesuit alleges Labor related violations.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

Attorneys for United Natural Foods, Inc. and United Natural FoodsWest, Inc.:

UNITED STATES: Certification of Children's Class Sought in JL Suit------------------------------------------------------------------The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled J.L., M.V.B., M.D.G.B., andJ.B.A., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situatedv. LEE FRANCIS CISSNA, Director, U.S. Citizenship and ImmigrationServices, KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, Secretary, U.S. Department ofHomeland Security, ROBERT COWAN, Director, National BenefitsCenter, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, UNITED STATESDEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP ANDIMMIGRATION SERVICES, Case No. 5:18-cv-04914-NC (N.D. Cal.), movesfor an order certifying a proposed class consisting of:

Children who have received or will receive guardianship orders pursuant to California Probate Code Section 1510.1(a) and who have received or will receive denials of their SIJS petitions on the grounds that the state court that issued the SIJ Findings lacked jurisdiction because the court did not have the authority to reunify the children with their parents.

The Plaintiffs also move for an order appointing them asrepresentatives of the Proposed Class, and appointing Manatt,Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Public Counsel, and Lawyers' Committee forCivil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area as Class Counsel.

The Plaintiffs and members of the Proposed Class are abandoned,abused, and neglected immigrant children. Each has been placedunder the care of a guardian by the probate division of theCalifornia Superior Court ("Probate Courts") pursuant to expressauthority provided to the Probate Courts by California Probate CodeSection 1510.1(a) (which pertains to children 18-20 years of age). Each is also the subject of a Probate Court order finding thatreunification with at least one of their parents is not viable dueto abandonment, abuse, or neglect, and that it is not in their bestinterest to return to their countries of origin (the "SIJFindings") -- findings the Probate Courts have express authority tomake under Section 1510.1(a).

The Court will commence a hearing on January 23, 2019, at 1:00p.m., to consider the Motion.[CC]

"all persons who (i) are lawful permanent residents of the United States; (ii) have signed an enlistment contract with

the U.S. military; and (iii) pursuant to Defendants’ October 13 memo, have not been permitted to begin initial entry training, commonly referred to as "boot camp," pending completion of their Military Service Suitability Determination and National Security Determination";

2. denying the DoD's motion to dismiss;

3. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction; and

4. enjoining Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and any other person or entity subject to their control or acting directly or indirectly in

concert or participation with Defendants from taking any action continuing to implement the October Memo and directing Defendants to return to the pre-October 13, 2017 practices for the accession of Lawful Permanent Residents into the military.[CC]

UPS STORE: Richardson Suit Moved to District of Massachusetts-------------------------------------------------------------Kevin Richardson, II All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff,vs. The UPS Store, Inc. and J&V Logistics LLC, the Defendant, CaseNo.: 1677-CV-01328, was removed from the Essex Superior Court, tothe United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts(Boston) on Nov. 7, 2018. The District of Massachusetts Court Clerkassigned Case No. 1:18-cv-12338 to the proceeding.

The Court said, "Barrios' and Defendant USF Reddaway Inc.'s jointstipulation regarding the Parties' proposed schedule of settlement.In the interest of justice and good cause appearing, the Courthereby grants the stipulation. The Parties to finalize the terms oftheir settlement by January 31, 2019. The motion for preliminaryapproval of class action settlement shall be filed by March 29,2019, which shall be set for hearing on April 29, 2019 at 8:30 a.m.The motion for preliminary approval of class action settlementshall include any fees and costs per the Court's standingorder."[CC]

UTILITY CONCIERGE: Fails to Pay OT to Concierges, Burke Alleges---------------------------------------------------------------JOSHUA BURKE, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, Plaintiff v. UTILITY CONCIERGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.3:18-cv-02869-G (N.D. Tex., Oct. 26, 2018) is an action against theDefendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtimecompensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff Burke was employed by the Defendant as concierge.

Utility Concierge, LLC is a Texas company doing business throughoutthe United States. The company provides travel information online.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were employed byDefendants. They were both paid on an hourly basis for their workand regularly worked over forty hours per week. Nonetheless,Defendants maintained a scheme by which they Plaintiff routinelyworked in excess of 40 hours per week. In violation of the FLSA,Defendants refused to pay her overtime for the hours she worked inexcess of 40 per week. Defendants also failed to pay Plaintiff forall hours worked in violation of New Mexico common law., thelawsuit says.[BN]

VEREIT INC: Continues to Defend Realistic Partners Class Suit-------------------------------------------------------------Vereit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for the quarterlyperiod ended September 30, 2018, that the company continues todefend in a putative class action suit entitled, Realistic Partnersv. American Realty Capital Partners, et al., No. 654468/2013.

In December 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class actionlawsuit against the Company and the then-members of its board ofdirectors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York, captionedRealistic Partners v. American Realty Capital Partners, et al., No.654468/2013.

The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the board of theCompany breached its fiduciary duties in connection with thetransactions contemplated under the Cole Merger Agreement (inconnection with the merger between a wholly owned subsidiary ofCole Credit Property Trust III, Inc. and Cole Holdings Corporation)and that Cole Credit Property Trust III, Inc. aided and abettedthose breaches.

In January 2014, the parties entered into a memorandum ofunderstanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalfof the alleged class of the Company's stockholders. The proposedsettlement terms required the Company to make certain additionaldisclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were included in aCurrent Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with the SEC onJanuary 17, 2014. The memorandum of understanding also contemplatedthat the parties would enter into a stipulation of settlement,which would be subject to customary conditions, includingconfirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to theCompany's stockholders, and provided that the defendants would notobject to a payment of up to $625,000 for attorneys' fees.

The company said, "If the parties enter into a stipulation ofsettlement, which has not occurred, a hearing will be scheduled atwhich the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness andadequacy of the settlement. There can be no assurance that theparties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the courtwill approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventualsettlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated bythe memorandum of understanding."

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Vereit, Inc. is a full-service real estate operating company whichowns and manages one of the largest portfolios of single-tenantcommercial properties in the U.S. The Company has a total assetbook value of $14.1 billion including approximately 4,000properties and 93.9 million square feet. Vereit business modelprovides equity capital to creditworthy corporations in return forlong-term leases on their properties. Vereit is a publicly tradedMaryland corporation listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

VICTORIA CRUISES: Website not Accessible to Blind, Diaz Says------------------------------------------------------------EDWIN DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,the Plaintiffs, vs. VICTORIA CRUISES, INC., the Defendant, Case No.1:18-cv-10347 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 7, 2018), alleges that Defendant'sfailed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website tobe fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff andother blind or visually-impaired people. Defendant's denial of fulland equal access to its website, and therefore denial of itsproducts and services offered thereby and in conjunction with itsphysical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under theAmericans with Disabilities Act.

Accoridng to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a visually-impairedand legally blind person who requires screen-reading software toread website content using his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms"blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visualimpairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that theyhave a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limitedvision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureaureport, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States arevisually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, andaccording to the American Foundation for the Blind’s 2015 report,approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons live in the Stateof New York. Because Defendant's website, www.victoriacruises.com,is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers,it violates the ADA, the lawsuit says.[BN]

VIVINT SOLAR: Attorneys' Fees and Costs in Alameda Suit Settled---------------------------------------------------------------Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the company hasalready paid the attorneys' fees and costs in the putative classaction suit filed in Superior Court in Alameda County, California.

In November 2016, a customer of the Company filed a putative classaction lawsuit in Superior Court in Alameda County, California,purportedly on behalf of all customers of a particular Companysales representative in California, claiming that therepresentative's sales practices were improper under Californiaconsumer protection law.

The Company moved to dismiss that action to compel arbitration. InMarch 2017, the original plaintiff filed an amended complaintadding an additional plaintiff, purporting to expand the proposedclass to include all customers who are eligible for the CaliforniaAlternate Rates for Energy program, and adding claims of misconductin the Company's sales practices apart from the individualrepresentative identified in the original complaint. The Companymoved to compel arbitration of the new plaintiff's claims as well.The Company disputed the allegations in both the original andamended complaints.

In January 2018, the parties reached a settlement with the twoindividual plaintiffs. Under the settlement, in addition to certainchanges to its sales process and immaterial compensation paymentsto the individual plaintiffs, the Company agreed to pay attorneys'fees.

On May 29, 2018, the court entered an order requiring the Companyto pay attorneys' fees and costs, both of which have now been paid,and which were immaterial to the Company's results of operations.

Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy toresidential, commercial, and industrial customers in the UnitedStates. The company operates in two segments, Residential, andCommercial and Industrial. The company was formerly known as VSolar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. inApril 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc. was founded in 2011 and isheadquartered in Lehi, Utah.

VIVINT SOLAR: Continues to Defend TCPA Class Suit in D.C.---------------------------------------------------------Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the companycontinues to defend a putative class action suit in the U.S.District Court for the District of Columbia over alleged violationsof the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In July 2018, an individual filed a putative class action lawsuitin the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,purportedly on behalf of himself and other persons who receivedcertain telephone calls.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated the TelephoneConsumer Protection Act and some of its implementing regulations.The complaint seeks statutory penalties for each alleged violation.

Vivint Solar said, "The Company disputes the allegations in thecomplaint and intends to vigorously defend itself in thelitigation. The Company is unable to estimate the amount or rangeof potential loss, if any, at this time."

Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy toresidential, commercial, and industrial customers in the UnitedStates. The company operates in two segments, Residential, andCommercial and Industrial. The company was formerly known as VSolar Holdings, Inc. and changed its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. inApril 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc. was founded in 2011 and isheadquartered in Lehi, Utah.

WELLS FARGO: Approval of Interchange Litig. Accord Pending----------------------------------------------------------Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the plaintiffs inthe interchange litigation have filed a motion for preliminaryapproval of settlement.

Plaintiffs representing a putative class of merchants have filedputative class actions, and individual merchants have filedindividual actions, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo &Company, Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wachovia Corporation regarding theinterchange fees associated with Visa and MasterCard payment cardtransactions. Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks and bankholding companies are also named as defendants in these actions.These actions have been consolidated in the United States DistrictCourt for the Eastern District of New York.

The amended and consolidated complaint asserts claims againstdefendants based on alleged violations of federal and stateantitrust laws and seeks damages, as well as injunctive relief.

Plaintiff merchants allege that Visa, MasterCard, and payment cardissuing banks unlawfully colluded to set interchange rates.Plaintiffs also allege that enforcement of certain Visa andMasterCard rules and alleged tying and bundling of services offeredto merchants are anticompetitive. Wells Fargo and Wachovia, alongwith other defendants and entities, are parties to Loss andJudgment Sharing Agreements, which provide that they, along withother entities, will share, based on a formula, in any losses fromthe Interchange Litigation.

On July 13, 2012, Visa, MasterCard, and the financial institutiondefendants, including Wells Fargo, signed a memorandum ofunderstanding with plaintiff merchants to resolve the consolidatedclass action and reached a separate settlement in principle of theconsolidated individual actions. The settlement payments to be madeby all defendants in the consolidated class and individual actionstotaled approximately $6.6 billion before reductions applicable tocertain merchants opting out of the settlement. The classsettlement also provided for the distribution to class merchants of10 basis points of default interchange across all credit ratecategories for a period of 8 consecutive months.

The district court granted final approval of the settlement, whichwas appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the SecondCircuit by settlement objector merchants. Other merchants opted outof the settlement and are pursuing several individual actions.

On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit vacated the settlementagreement and reversed and remanded the consolidated action to theUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of New Yorkfor further proceedings. On November 23, 2016, prior class counselfiled a petition to the United States Supreme Court, seeking reviewof the reversal of the settlement by the Second Circuit, and theSupreme Court denied the petition on March 27, 2017. On November30, 2016, the district court appointed lead class counsel for adamages class and an equitable relief class.

The parties have entered into a settlement agreement to resolve themoney damages class claims pursuant to which defendants will pay atotal of approximately $6.2 billion, which includes approximately$5.3 billion of funds remaining from the 2012 settlement and $900million in additional funding. The Company's allocatedresponsibility for the additional funding is approximately $94.5million. Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of thesettlement in September 2018. Several of the opt-out litigationswere settled during the pendency of the Second Circuit appeal whileothers remain pending. Discovery is proceeding in the opt-outlitigations and the equitable relief class case.

WELLS FARGO: Class Certification Sought in Suits over ATDS----------------------------------------------------------In the two class action lawsuits captioned as ALBERT PIETERSON, onbehalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No.3:17-cv-02306-EDL (N.D. Cal.); and JOHN HASTINGS, on behalf ofhimself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WELLSFARGO BANK, N.A., the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-03633-EDL (N.D.Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on January 22, 2019, foran order:

1. certifying a class of:

"all persons within the United States who, between September 18,2014 and the present, (1) received a non-emergency call to theircellular telephone numbers; (2) through the use of the AspectSoftware Inc. or Castel Inc. automatic telephone dialing systems oran artificial or prerecorded voice; (3) from Wells Fargo; (4)regarding the collection of alleged debts in connection with WellsFargo credit card accounts; and (5) who were not Wells Fargo creditcard account holders at the time of the call"; and

Excluded from the Class are Wells Fargo, its employees, agents, andassigns, and any member of the 11 judiciary to whom this case isassigned, their respective court staff, and Plaintiffs' counsel.Excluded 12 from the action are any claims for personal injury,wrongful death, and/or emotional distress.[CC]

WELLS FARGO: Continues to Defend ATM Access Fee-Related Suits-------------------------------------------------------------Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the companycontinues to defend itself in class action suits related to ATMAccess Fee.

In October 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action, Mackmin,et al. v. Visa, Inc. et al., against Wells Fargo & Company, WellsFargo Bank, N.A., Visa, MasterCard, and several other banks in theUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia.Plaintiffs allege that the Visa and MasterCard requirement that ifan ATM operator charges an access fee on Visa and MasterCardtransactions, then that fee cannot be greater than the access feecharged for transactions on other networks violates antitrustrules. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctiverelief, and attorneys' fees where available under federal and statelaw.

Two other antitrust cases that make similar allegations were filedin the same court, but these cases did not name Wells Fargo as adefendant. On February 13, 2013, the district court granteddefendants' motions to dismiss the three actions. Plaintiffsappealed the dismissals and, on August 4, 2015, the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated thedistrict court's decisions and remanded the three cases to thedistrict court for further proceedings.

On June 28, 2016, the United States Supreme Court granteddefendants' petitions for writ of certiorari to review thedecisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District ofColumbia. On November 17, 2016, the United States Supreme Courtdismissed the petitions as improvidently granted, and the threecases returned to the district court for further proceedings.

WELLS FARGO: Continues to Defend Order of Posting-Related Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that the companycontinues to defend itself in lawsuits related to the Order ofPosting.

Plaintiffs filed a series of putative class actions againstWachovia Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as manyother banks, challenging the "high to low" order in which the bankspost debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts. Most ofthese actions were consolidated in multi-district litigationproceedings (MDL proceedings) in the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of Florida.

The court in the MDL proceedings has certified a class of putativeplaintiffs, and Wells Fargo moved to compel arbitration of theclaims of unnamed class members. The court denied the motions tocompel arbitration in October 2016, and Wells Fargo appealed thisdecision to the United States Court of Appeals for the EleventhCircuit.

In May 2018, the Eleventh Circuit ruled in Wells Fargo's favor andfound that Wells Fargo had not waived its arbitration rights andremanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing to the Eleventh Circuit,which was denied in August 2018.

WELLS FARGO: Final Fairness Hearing in Cotton et al. Suit in March -------------------------------------------------------------------Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a final settlementfairness hearing in the case, Cotton, et al. v. Wells Fargo, etal., has been scheduled for March 4, 2019.

Plaintiffs, representing a putative class of mortgage borrowers whowere debtors in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, filed a putative classaction, Cotton, et al. v. Wells Fargo, et al., against Wells Fargo& Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in the United StatesBankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina on June7, 2017.

The parties have entered into a settlement agreement pursuant towhich the Company will pay $13.5 million to resolve the claims. OnOctober 24, 2018, the court granted preliminary approval of thesettlement and scheduled a final fairness hearing for March 4,2019.

WENDY'S CO: Feb. 25 Final Approval Hearing on Torres Deal---------------------------------------------------------The Wendy's Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2018, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2018, that a final approvalhearing of class settlement in the class action suit filed byJonathan Torres is scheduled for February 25, 2019.

The Company was previously named as a defendant in putative classaction lawsuits alleging, among other things, that the Companyfailed to safeguard customer credit card information and failed toprovide notice that credit card information had been compromised.

Jonathan Torres and other consumers filed an action in the U.S.District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "TorresCase"). The operative complaint seeks to certify a nationwide classof consumers, or in the alternative, statewide classes of consumersfor Florida, New York, New Jersey, Texas and Tennessee, as well asstatewide classes of consumers under those states' consumerprotection and unfair trade practices laws.

Certain financial institutions have also filed class actionlawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Western District ofPennsylvania, which seek to certify a nationwide class of financialinstitutions that issued payment cards that were allegedlyimpacted. Those cases were consolidated into a single case (the"FI Case").

In the Torres Case and FI Case, the plaintiffs seek monetarydamages, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys' fees and othercosts. On August 23, 2018, the court preliminarily approved classsettlement in the Torres case.

A final approval hearing of the Torres settlement is scheduled forFebruary 25, 2019.

On August 27, 2018, the Company filed a motion for judgment on thepleadings in the FI Case, seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs'negligence and negligence per se claims under Ohio law. That motionis pending before the court.

Discovery as between the parties in the FI Case is stayed whilesettlement discussions are occurring.

The Wendy's Company, through its subsidiaries, operates as aquick-service restaurant company. It is involved in operating,developing, and franchising a system of quick-service restaurantsspecializing in hamburger sandwiches. The company's restaurantsoffer a range of chicken breast sandwiches, chicken nuggets, chili,French fries, baked potatoes, salads, soft drinks, desserts, andkids’ meals. The Wendy's Company was founded in 1969 and isheadquartered in Dublin, Ohio.

WEST COAST QUARTZ: Luis Mendoza Seeks Unpaid Wages--------------------------------------------------LUIS MENDOZA and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, vs.WEST COAST QUARTZ CORPORATION, a California Corporation; and Does 1through 100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. RG18927787 (Cal.Super. Ct., Nov. 7, 2018), challenges the Defendants' policies andpractices of not providing a non-exempt workers with 30-minute mealbreak when work more than 5 hours in a workday; not providing 10minute rest breaks for every hours of work; failing to authorize,permit, and/or make available meal and rest periods to theirnon-exempt employees to which they are entitled by law; failing topay premium pay for these missed meal breaks; and failing to payanother extra hour, regular pay, premium pay, for each day on whicha rest break violation occurred, pursuant to the California LaborCode.

According to the complaint, because of the missed breaks, theDefendants have not paid Plaintiffs, non-exempt employees, for allhours worked, including overtime compensation and minimum wage whenthey regularly work more than 5 hours without breaks. TheDefendants have not provided Plaintiffs with accurate, statements.The Defendants have further failed to pay all wages owed toPlaintiffs who have voluntarily or involuntarily terminated theiremployment with the Defendants, the lawsuit says.[BN]

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as non-exempt,hourly workers.

Western Milling, LLC, doing business as O.H. Kruse Grain & Milling,LLC, produces and supplies animal feed in the United States.Western Milling, LLC was founded in 2000 and is based in Goshen,California. It has plants in Famoso and Hanford, California; andBuckeye, Arizona. [BN]

The action stems from a proposed transaction announced on September25, 2018, pursuant to which XO Group Inc. will be acquired byWeddingWire, Inc. and Wedelia Merger Sub, Corp. On September 24,2018, XO Group's Board of Directors caused the Company to enterinto an agreement and plan of merger with WeddingWire. Pursuant tothe terms of the Merger Agreement, XO Group's stockholders willreceive $35.00 in cash for each share of XO Group common stock theyhold. On November 13, 2018, the Defendants filed a proxy statementwith the United States Securities and Exchange Commission inconnection with the Proposed Transaction.

The Proxy Statement, which scheduled a stockholder vote on theProposed Transaction for December 18, 2018, omits materialinformation with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which rendersthe Proxy Statement false and misleading, the lawsuit says.[BN]

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.